Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Farm Rents

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average farm rent per acre now; and what it was three years ago.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): There are no statistics of rents paid on all farms in the country. The average rent per acre on a sample of tenanted farms in England and Wales was 30s. 3d. in 1953–54 as compared with 34s. 6d. for a similar sample in 1956–57.

Mr. Digby: Can my hon. Friend say how these variations compare with those in farming income, on the one hand, and the cost of repairs and maintenance on the other?

Mr. Godber: I could not tell my hon. Friend that without notice. I should be very glad to look into it if he would wish me to.

Agricultural Holdings

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings were to let in each of the last three years.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult for sons of farmers to find farms to rent and that this is a most unfortunate thing?

Mr. Godber: Yes, indeed, and it is to that end that I hope the new Agriculture Bill which we discussed the other day will have some effect.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the total number of agricultural holdings in England and Wales has varied in each of the last three years; and if he will state the main reasons.

Mr. Godber: The total number of agricultural holdings fell by 5,800, or 1½ per cent., between June, 1954, and June, 1955; by 4,600, or 1¼ per cent., in 1955–56; and by 3,000, or under 1 per cent., in 1956–57. My right hon. Friend regrets that it is not possible to give reasons for the changes that occur from year to year.

Mr. Digby: Can my hon. Friend give any indication how far this is due to larger units and the amalgamation of holdings?

Mr. Godber: I am afraid that we have no evidence on that point. In fact, the figures have not been uniform in the way they have fallen over the last few years, but there was a rise in the years preceding that period, so it is somewhat difficult to draw any close analogy from this.

Gwynedd River Board (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has reduced the estimate for capital expenditure of the Gwynedd River Board for 1958–59 from £78,000 to £36,000; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees of the Gwynedd River Board will be made redundant by the reduction of the estimate for the Board's capital expenditure for 1958–59 in Caernarvonshire, Anglesey, and Merioneth, respectively.

Mr. Godber: In view of the national economic situation, it has been necessary to ask drainage authorities, in common with other local authorities, to accept reductions in their programmes of capital expenditure. For a programme of land drainage improvement works in 1958–59 estimated at £63,000, the Gwynedd River


Board was offered a provisional allocation of not less than £36,000 and, more recently, a definite allocation of £42,000.
In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), the river board has not yet had time to consider the effect of this allocation on its programme.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this big reduction will have far-reaching consequences on the countryside? Is he further aware, for example, that it is calculated that in Anglesey alone, where already there is a very high incidence of unemployment, thirty men will lose their employment as a result of this cut? Is it not the case that out of this £36,000 which the Minister has given to this area, £24,000 is to be spent in Merionethshire, leaving £12,000 only for Anglesey and Caernarvon? Does this not make a complete mockery of the Minister's promise to improve agricultural drainage in the country?

Mr. Godber: With respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has this quite correct. The actual firm allocation which I have mentioned is £42,000. The expenditure last year was £49,000, so the cut, if any, is very much smaller than the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Of course, if there are any special circumstances which come to light, we shall be glad to look into them. We have as yet no evidence of any definite, and certainly of no immediate, cut in employment by the board.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is quite impossible to farm really efficiently if the land is badly drained? What is the point of giving more fertilisers to farmers if the land is not properly drained?

Mr. Godber: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the need for drainage. We are doing all we can, but there has been a credit squeeze, of which the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, and we are asking all river boards to keep down expenditure to the minimum necessary at the moment. We certainly want to increase expenditure again as soon as we can.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is an area which is burdened with a very high rate

of unemployment, and that the employment aspect mentioned by my hon. Friend ought to be borne in mind?

Mr. Godber: Yes, of course, but I have no knowledge of any immediate sackings of staff at all, and as far as I am aware that is not intended.

Small and Marginal Farmers

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce measures to help small and marginal farmers.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I cannot forecast exactly when an announcement will be made, but it is my intention that details of the new measures that I have in mind will be worked out, in consultation with the interests concerned, in time to be introduced as part of the determinations after the 1959 Annual Review.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Minister hold out no hope that they will be brought into force before that date? Does he realise that it is very difficult for small farmers to change their methods in the way in which he asked them to change in the last Price Review, and can he say if there is any hope of being able to assist them with cheaper credit or in any other way?

Mr. Hare: I think the House would agree that it would be unwise to rush into a scheme of this sort, which is a fairly new concept. I want to consult in great detail with the National Farmers' Union and other bodies to be quite certain that I have got the right answer.

Mr. Fell: Will not my right hon. Friend, before he comes to a final decision, give the most careful thought to the Liberal Party's policy to help the small and marginal farmers?

Mr. Hare: I am always interested in studying any constructive suggestions.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman now make it transparently clear to those who obviously have misunderstood him that, whatever scheme is worked out, it cannot operate until after March, 1959?

Mr. Hare: I have made that abundantly clear in any statements I have


made, both to the Press and in the House, and I think that this Question will draw further attention to that fact.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give his definition of a small farm; and upon what basis he intends to make his grants to small farmers.

Mr. John Hare: In England and Wales, we are thinking generally of farms in the range of about 30 to about 100 acres. We have in mind, within such an acreage range, a minimum limit of earning capacity so as to ensure that the holding can be made economic. We also have in mind a maximum limit of earning capacity which might be related to the amount of employment given on the holding. For example, the farmer with, perhaps under certain conditions, one other man working for him. We are thinking of grants related to schemes for improvement and better use of grassland, and we shall try to make the grant system as simple as possible, for example, on an acreage basis. The precise definition of those eligible and the basis for grants are, of course, matters on which we shall be consulting the interests concerned.

Mr. Johnson: Is it the Minister's view that below a certain acreage a small farm is not viable? Is it his policy in the future to give selective assistance with, perhaps, better planning or cheaper money? Does he favour, as he did last year, squeezing out the smaller farms below a certain minimum size to make what he called "more efficient units" by amalgamation?

Mr. Hare: It is difficult to generalise, and that is why I am going into great detail on this matter. For instance, a small acreage on first-class land may make a more viable farming unit than a far larger acreage on very moderate land. It is exactly because of the complexity of these questions that I am absolutely determined to go into every detail before the final plan is published.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While appreciating that it will take time to work out the details of my right hon. Friend's plan, may I ask whether he will, nevertheless, consider giving the farmer some broad guidance by the end of September, so that the farmer can plan ahead for next year? It is vital that the farmers should have it.

Mr. Hare: I will certainly listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) says. I must repeat to the House that I do not want to be stampeded into a plan which will not work. I must ask for the indulgence of the House, therefore, to let me work this out in proper detail.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the Minister tell the House the number of farms below 30 acres?

Mr. Hare: I could not, offhand. I will let the right hon. Gentleman have that figure. I will see that it is sent to him.

Food Prices

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fact that food import prices have fallen from 101 in 1957 to 93 in February, 1958, which foods have shown the biggest drop in retail prices; and by how much.

Mr. John Hare: From trade quotations available to me, the biggest reductions in retail prices over the last twelve months, resulting from lower import costs, have been between 9d. and 1s. per lb. for cheese, about 8d. per lb. for tea and about 1½d. per lb. for sugar.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the reduction in prices which farmers are getting for some of their products has been adequately represented in retail prices in the shops?

Mr. Hare: I am giving constant attention to this, but I think that hon. Members might bear in mind the fact that wage rates have risen over 5 per cent. during the last twelve months, and the cost of fuel for industry has also risen in price by about 6 per cent. There are additional costs, such as transport, all of which have to be taken into account when we are considering distribution costs.

Mr. Jay: How does the Minister explain the fact that over the year import prices for food have gone down, retail prices have gone up, and yet the subsidies have increased?

Mr. Hare: No, that is not true. I think the fact that retail prices have not gone down is chiefly because of the high cost of certain things, such as potatoes, because of a shortage, and also of certain horticultural products.

Mr. Willey: Would not the Minister agree with my right hon. Friend that over the year the Interim Index of Retail Food Prices has gone up, although import prices have fallen recently?

Mr. Hare: It is important to get this matter clear. The hon. Member's Question related to food and not to retail prices in general.

Fishing Industry (Territorial Waters)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the concern felt in the British trawling industry at the proposals to extend the territorial water limit to twelve miles; and, since such a proposal would bring ruin to the British fishing industry, if he will now make a further statement on the discussions that have taken place so far at Geneva.

Mr. John Hare: I am fully aware of the views of the British trawling industry on the question of the breadth of the territorial sea, and I have much sympathy with them. The Conference will not end until 24th April, and at the present time I cannot add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fishermen and the trawler owners will want a great deal more than sympathy from him? Is he also aware that what they fear is that if the 12-mile limit is enforced the fishing industry will be utterly bankrupt, and will he do his utmost to resist this proposal?

Mr. Hare: I can assure my hon. Friend that my sympathy will be translated into as practical action as possible, but I hope that he has read the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General at Geneva quite recently, in which the attitude of Her Majesty's Government was very clearly explained.

Milk

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the price and quantity of milk referred to in paragraph 17 Command Paper No. 390, relating to the need to discourage the highest cost production; what are the highest and lowest production costs per gallon; and at what cost is the bulk of English milk produced.

Mr. John Hare: The Government do not regard it as practicable or desirable to try to set precise commodity production targets in free market conditions, but it is clearly desirable in present circumstances to reduce production of milk and to do so by eliminating the highest cost output.
Information on milk production costs is not available for all farms in the country, but the latest evidence from the National Investigation into the Economics of Milk Production suggests that milk production costs in England and Wales ranged from less than 1s. 8d. per gallon to over 3s. per gallon in 1956–57. Two-thirds of the milk produced on this sample of farms was in the range of cost from 1s. 10d. per gallon to 2s. 8d. per gallon.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have now been made to Argentina pressing for more effective precautions to prevent foot-and-mouth disease reaching Great Britain in chilled and frozen meat; and if more satisfactory undertakings for the future have now been given.

Mr. John Hare: I am glad to have this opportunity of assuring my hon. Friend that the remarks I made in the House on 5th March have been drawn to the attention of the Argentine Government. I made it clear then what very great importance I attach to this matter, and I am sure that the Argentine Government are as anxious as we are ourselves to maintain steady progress toward the effective control of the disease. Through my veterinary officers stationed in Buenos Aires, we are in constant touch with the Argentine authorities on precautions designed to prevent infected carcases reaching Great Britain.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend take note that the action which has at last been taken will be very warmly and widely welcomed, and will he keep the House informed of the progress he is able to make in seeing that these precautions against bringing in foot-and-mouth disease through South American meat are made more effective with the co-operation of the Argentine authorities?

Mr. Hare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I place great importance on this matter, and I will certainly keep the House informed.

Annual Price Review (Welsh Representatives)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that, as is already the case with Ulster and Scotland, there shall be separate Welsh representatives in future Annual Price Reviews distinct from English representatives; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: I agree that the interests of agricultural producers in Wales should be adequately represented. I think the present arrangements achieve that end.

Mr. Gower: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in recent years, the Welsh Department of his Ministry has been very largely decentralised and made autonomous? Does not that indicate that agriculture in Wales has many particular and peculiar problems for consideration, and would he not consider it proper that the desire of many people in Wales to have reasonable representation in cases of this kind should now be met?

Mr. Hare: I assure my hon. Friend that I do pay the greatest possible attention to the position of farmers in Wales, and I assure him that I shall continue to do so.

Horticulture

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on horticulture.

Mr. John Hare: As I have told the House, I am anxious to make a statement at the earliest possible moment on the principal recommendations of the Runciman Report, I regret that, owing to the complexity of these matters, and the need to take account of the views of a very large number of interested parties, I shall not be in a position to do so until after the Easter Recess. There will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that I am much obliged to him for his statement, and that we appreciate that he is

new to his office and that this is a complicated question? May I ask him if he will regard this as a matter of urgent priority and see that a statement is made as soon as possible, and, if necessary, that legislation is introduced to implement it?

Mr. Hare: I do not want to repeat myself, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very concerned that a statement should be made as soon as possible. I have a lot of people to talk to—there are twenty-six local authorities to consult as well as traders. I shall try to speed up an announcement to the best of my ability.

Major Legge-Bourke: In addition to my right hon. Friend's decision about the Runciman Report, may I ask him whether he will give immediate and urgent attention to the very serious problem developing in the tomato section of the industry so far as Spanish imports are concerned?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that, since you have allowed that question to be in order, Mr. Speaker, it is in order. Certainly. I will listen to what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said.

Farmers (Spendable Income)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether figures of the spendable income of farmers are agreed for the purposes of the Annual Price Review negotiations; and if he will publish these figures.

Mr. Godber: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) on 21st March, 1958, in which the figures of spendable income from 1947–48 onwards were given. The Farmers' Unions have not challenged the data on which these figures are based or the calculations involved, but there is not agreement on the inferences to be drawn from them.

Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he said these figures were agreed when we had the debate on the Agriculture Bill but that now the National Farmers' Union has denied that they were agreed, maintaining that real farming income is 8 per cent. lower in 1957 than it was in 1948, despite a rise in output of some 22 per cent.?

Mr. Godber: I have seen the announcement that was put out by the National Farmers' Union. I certainly had no intention of misleading the House. I understood that these figures were agreed, but we can all draw such inferences as we choose from any such figures. I am aware of the suggestion of the N.F.U. that farmers' income is down by that amount, but this depends entirely on the way in which one interprets the figures, and the interpretation which I have given is, I believe, the right one.

Mr. T. Williams: Instead of creating doubt and anxiety about the accuracy or what-not of the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given, would he not agree that confusion is bound to arise when he is giving a figure and drawing conclusions which are not agreed conclusions, and will he endeavour to supplement the reply he gave on 21st March in order to clarify the whole position on value, as well as on £ notes?

Mr. Godber: These figures were based on value, not on £ notes. They were real figures in the sense that they relate to 1948 terms. We tried to make it clear as far as possible that they were real figures, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman on that. If he would care to check, I think he will see that that is so.

Potatoes

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that, according to variety, wholesale prices of potatoes are now from £28 to £38 per ton and retail prices as high as 5½d. per lb.; and what steps he is taking to ensure that there is sufficient importation of potatoes, in augmentation of home supplies, to permit a reduction in prices to the consumer.

Mr. John Hare: Yes, Sir, potato prices have risen steeply during the past three weeks, but the higher prices are attracting increasing quantities of imports which will help the position. Full consultations have been held with representatives of producers' organisations and the distributive trades, and I am satisfied that they will do all they can to supply the needs of the market. I shall welcome imports from all sources of supply which are acceptable under the plant health regulations.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister not aware that prices are currently double what they were this time last year and have, indeed, reached the high levels of 1956? Does he not feel that this situation is very bad not only for housewives but, in the long run, for home producers? Can he not, having accepted the advice tendered by the Opposition last year to admit imports, now find other means to supplement the supply of potatoes or, alternatively, find other means of holding prices down?

Mr. Hare: Last year was a very bad year. Imports are coining in, however, and I am able to give the hon. Member the figures for the last few weeks. In the week ended 8th March, 6,500 tons came in; in the week ended 15th March, 14,900, and 22nd March, 21,200. I think the supply position is adjusting itself.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what puzzles the housewives is that these imports do not seem to have any positive action in reducing prices? Why are we having to pay such scandalously high prices for old potatoes which are now almost as dear as new potatoes?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Lady knows, there is a shortage of potatoes here and there was some shortage of potatoes in Europe. It is a fact that the price is up now and is actually attracting the extra supplies that we need.

Eggs

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the prices paid to producers sending eggs to the packing stations in the past three months compare with the prices paid in the same period last year; and to what extent the guaranteed price has been lowered by reason of lower feeding stuff costs and the Exchequer liability for subsidy in both periods.

Mr. John Hare: The minimum prices guaranteed to producers for hen eggs sold through packing stations in the first three months of 1957 averaged 4s. 1¾d. per dozen. The minimum prices which the British Egg Marketing Board has required packers to pay during the first three months of 1958 are expected to average about 3s. 9d. per dozen. The price of 4s. 1¾d. included a feed cost addition of 1½d. per dozen, and the price


of 3s. 9d. takes account of a feed cost reduction of about 3½d. per dozen. For the first three months of 1957, the subsidy was approximately £20 million and, for the corresponding period of this year, is estimated at just over £11 million.

Sheep (Foot Rot)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will obtain information from the Victoria State Government upon the working of their Act of 1956, dealing with the control and treatment of foot rot in sheep, with a view to the possible introduction of a similar measure for England and Wales.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is aware of the legislation in force in Victoria, and of the action taken under it. Control methods in Australia are similar to our own; but, as the hon. Member will have understood from the reply given to him on 13th March, my right hon. Friend does not consider that legislative action is necessary in this country.

Sausages (Standards)

Colonel Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the report of the Food Standards Committee on sausages.

Mr. John Hare: Yes, Sir. In May, 1956, the Food Standards Committee reported in favour of statutory minimum standards for sausages, but was unable to agree as to the types of meat to be allowed in sausages described as "pork" or "beef". The majority recommended that the addition of up to 20 per cent. of meat other than the named meat should be permitted, but a minority of the Committee recommended that sausages so described should not be allowed to contain other meat in any proportion.
I am advised that the majority recommendation would be unenforceable because there is no known method of determining the proportions of pork or beef and other meats in a sausage; the minority recommendation would conflict with long-established custom in the trade.
I could not agree to establish a standard for sausages that cannot be enforced, and I am unwilling to make it an offence to continue an old and reputable trade practice used by many

firms of national and local repute. There is, therefore, no action which I can take on the Committee's report.

Colonel Glyn: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to look into the matter again if a suitable method of analysis could be found to enable regulations to be enforceable?

Mr. Hare: If that did happen, a new situation would arise, and I should certainly be willing to consider that situation.

Mr. Hastings: Will not the right hon. Gentleman work out some scheme whereby the purchasers of sausages may know the percentage of meat the sausages contain, whether of pork, beef, cat or whatever it is?

Mr. Hare: That, indeed, is my difficulty. It is quite impossible, with the scientific knowledge we have available, to ascertain exactly what proportion of what meat there is in a sausage.

Mr. Willey: Will not the Minister do something to save us from these disappointing sausages?

Mr. Hare: The sausages we eat today are of quite excellent quality.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend explain why sausages always seem to defeat everybody?

Mr. Hare: I should be very rash if I tried to answer the hon. Lady. This is a very vexed problem which has troubled many Ministers of Agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Widows

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost to the fund if the rule excluding widows under 50 years of age from benefit were abolished; and what would be the cost if the age were reduced to 40 years.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): On the basis that the change applied to existing widows, the cost of the first proposal would be of the order of £25 million a year and of the second about £20 million a year.

Mr. Marlowe: Is not the principle behind this harsh rule introduced by the Labour Government the fallacious assumption that these women can easily obtain work? Does not my right hon. Friend realise that many widows, because they have children to look after or because they live in non-industrial areas and have never been out to work before, are quite unable to obtain employment and have to live on National Assistance? Would he not refer this matter back to the Advisory Committee, with these considerations in view?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this matter was carefully considered by the Advisory Committee some eighteen months ago and that it came to the conclusion, and so advised me, that on the statistics put before it the difficulties which my hon. and learned Friend foresees would not arise. He will also know that other provisions, giving a flying start in sickness and unemployment benefit, were introduced at the same time.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the hon. Member's reference to the Labour Party, may I ask the Minister whether it is not true that the provisions eventually adopted in the 1946 Act were more favourable to widows than those in the Coalition Government's White Paper or in the Beveridge Report?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend are both right on different aspects of the matter. The limitation on widows up to a certain age who neither had young children nor were sick was introduced in the right hon. Gentleman's original Bill. The figure referred to in my hon. and learned Friend's Question was introduced in our Bill about eighteen months ago.

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how much it would cost to abolish the earnings limitation on widowed mothers, and to pay widowed mothers' allowances irrespective of earned income, as is done regarding unearned income.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The direct cost would be about £2 million a year.

Mrs. Jeger: Why has not the right hon. Gentleman been a little more forthcoming on this subject? Is not this an anomaly

which it would be fair to refer to the National Insurance Advisory Committee? Is he not aware that it strikes many people as extremely unfair that earned income should be treated differently from unearned income in this connection?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question of these widowed mothers was, in point of fact, before the National Insurance Advisory Committee some eighteen months ago. So far from not being forthcoming on the matter, the hon. Lady has put down a Question and I have answered it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can answer this supplementary question or whether he would prefer notice. One of the facts in the background to the problem has been that before the Second World War private employers and, indeed, some public employers when employing pensioners, including widows, deducted their pensions from the wages paid, which caused a good deal of concern among trade unionists. Does that practice still exist, and if it does, to what extent does it exist?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should be grateful if, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, he would be good enough to give me notice of that question.

Mr. Sumner: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is the estimated cost of abolishing the earnings limitation in assessing the various allowances and pensions of widows, under the National Insurance Act, in order to bring them into the same position as those with an unearned income.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The direct cost would be £6½ million.

Mr. Sumner: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the number of widows over 40 years of age who have ceased, since February, 1957, to be entitled to the widowed mothers' pension before becoming entitled to widow's pension at the age of 50 years; and what steps he has taken, or will take, to ascertain by factual evidence whether such widows are suffering hardship.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Up to the end of December, about 450. The change in this


age limit for widow's pension was accompanied by arrangements designed to avoid hardship under which widows who find themselves unable to work after their widowed mother's allowance ends can qualify as appropriate for sickness or unemployment benefit at the same rate as a widow's pension. Further, as part of the same arrangements, a widowed mother's allowance is now paid in all cases so long as the widow has a child under 18 living at home. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the National Insurance Advisory Committee gave very careful consideration to this recommendation, and I have no information which leads me to doubt the soundness of its view that this provision would not cause hardship. I will continue to watch the position closely.

Mr. Sumner: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion of the Committee was purely theoretical at the time, and would it not now be worth having a factual inquiry to see whether that opinion has been justified or not?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not fair to say that the opinion was theoretical. A considerable volume of statistics was submitted to the Committee, which had been obtained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. In fairness to the Committee, I should say that it dealt with the matter in a very practical way.

Mrs. Jeger: Is there not some slight misunderstanding in the Question? Can the Minister say whether a widow ever becomes entitled to widow's pension at the age of 50? Is it not part of the unfairness about which complaint is made that if her husband dies before she is 50 she never becomes entitled to a widow's pension?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The point which my hon. Friend has in mind and which is very properly put in the Question is where the eligibility to widowed mothers allowance ends after the age of 50.

War Pension (Personal Case)

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance why the claim of Mr. F. W. Hunter, 40, Lawn Avenue, Great Yarmouth, for his disability to be attributed to war service was accepted in 1948 and this decision reversed in 1953.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): The consensus of expert medical opinion is that the disability from which Mr. Hunter is suffering cannot be caused by war service, although in certain circumstances it can be aggravated by it. As I told the hon. Member in my letter of 19th March, the decision of 1948 was wrong. The independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1955 found that the disability was not attributable to service. Mr. Hunter is receiving a pension, assessed at 50 per cent. disability, on grounds of aggravation owing to service.

Mr. Fell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the bias usually shown in favour of the pensioner by his Ministry is such that it makes it all the more difficult to understand this case? I have in mind the picture of a man lying in bed unable even to light a cigarette for himself—a man who gave the best years of his life to this country in war-time. In 1951 this man was receiving treatment allowance which was equivalent to 100 per cent. pension, but in 1953 a reverse decision was given by my hon. Friend's doctors compared with that which his doctors gave in 1948. All I am doing is to appeal to my hon. Friend today to have another look at the case, in spite of his words that the decision is final and binding, in order to see whether it is not possible to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Wood: It is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that Mr. Hunter is very severely disabled, but the difference between us is that I am saying that his disability is aggravated by his war service and is not attributable to it. This whole question was before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1955. The Tribunal decided that a mistake had been made in 1948 and that it should he now put right.

Mr. Fell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer and the fact that it is difficult to go back and to reverse a doctors' decision and a Minister's decision, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again.

National Insurance Scheme

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce a no-claim bonus


scheme for National Insurance, whereby an insured person who made no claim in respect of National Insurance or health for a year or longer would be credited with a certain number of stamps in the ensuing year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. While I understand and sympathise with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, I do not think that the change he suggests, which could relate only to a comparatively small element in the National Insurance contribution, would, even if feasible, be consistent with the main principles of the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. Harris: Does the Minister realise that this is a rather disappointing reply and is not satisfactory because he has given no reasons for this or the cost of it? Does he not think that anything should be done which might reduce the call on the State and that people should be given this encouragement?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think we can separate sickness benefit from the other benefits of the Scheme, such as unemployment benefit. We could not single out sickness benefit for the very special treatment which my hon. Friend suggests. The whole principle of the Scheme is the pooling of the general risks which affect the whole community, not the singling out of a particular risk to which a particular section may or may not be liable.

Dr. Summerskill: As the suggestion embodied in the Question has been raised in other quarters, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that if he entertained such a suggestion it would deter the poorest in the country from seeking medical advice?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That may be so, but the right hon. Lady heard the answer which I gave, to which I do not think it is necessary to add.

Family Allowances and Maternity Benefits (Aliens)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will amend his regulations so as to avoid the payment of family allowances and maternity benefits to members of United States forces in this country who receive such benefits from their country of origin.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. But I understand that the United States Third Air Force authorities do what they can to discourage those United States Service men who stay here long enough to qualify for family allowances from claiming them. So far as maternity benefits are concerned, no question of such a claim arises as these are National Insurance benefits, and members of the United States forces do not pay National Insurance contributions.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend take the matter of family allowances further with the United States Air Force, because there is some anxiety and doubt in the minds of some of my constituents as to the rightness of families of American Service men being able to draw family allowances from the British taxpayer?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has been in touch with the United States authorities in the last few days with a view to seeing whether some reinforcement can be provided of the discouragement which my main answer indicated is given to their men to claim these allowances.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not the Minister think it wise to draw the attention of the public to the fact that many of the women who draw these family allowances are English women married to American men and that these women have often paid taxation in this country before their marriage?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Lady is in substance right. I understand that the vast majority of the very limited number of cases which exist relate to wives who were British girls before their marriage. I had a spot check taken in the last few days and, of the five cases in which allowances had been claimed, four were British girls born here, and one came from Bermuda, and it so happened that in three cases the husbands were not in this country.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, with a view to ascertaining the number of United States Service men who are entitled to draw family allowances, he will request the United States authorities to supply details as to the number of


married Americans with two or more children who have been resident in Great Britain for three or more years; and further, as a means of ascertaining the actual number of United States Service men drawing family allowances, if he will request the United States Service authorities to collate this information and supply the same to his Department.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. The information referred to in the first part of the Question would serve no useful purpose, and I do not think the suggestion contained in the second part of the Question would be appropriate or helpful.

Mr. Lewis: When this matter was raised previously, even this afternoon, the Minister said that he had not the information. Unless he finds out the information, how can he say that there are not many of these cases? How can he say that they are English girls, when, in fact, many of them are American girls who are paying no taxation or making any contribution whatsoever? Surely the best way is for him to find out the facts and to let us know whether there are hundreds or dozens of women drawing these payments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member will recollect, I did not say that I had no information. I told him that I could not give him the precise figures. The particular method of inquiry which he suggests in his Question does not strike me as at all useful.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many foreign diplomats in London draw family allowances.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no information as to the number, if any, who do so.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that any diplomat with a family who has been here for three years can start drawing tax-free family allowances which, in the case of British subjects, are liable to tax? Will he follow the precedent of the case of the American Service men, and ask the Foreign Secretary to have a word with the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in London with a view to seeing that those diplomats, if they are drawing any family allowance, desist from that practice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These matters are regulated by the normal rules governing the Diplomatic Corps in all capitals,

and I know of no reason whatever why it should be necessary to take the initiative suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Rationing Scheme

Mr. Hunter: asked the Paymaster-General whether, in view of the imminent end of winter, he is yet in a position to announce an approximate date for the ending of coal rationing.

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what increase in coal allocation to householders is proposed for the summer of 1958.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Paymaster-General if he will state the position of coal stocks compared with this time last year; and to what extent the prospect of removing coal rationing has now improved.

Mr. Sylvester: asked the Paymaster-General whether, in view of the amount of coal in stock, he will now end coal rationing.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the fact that the cost of the coal rationing scheme is £1 million per annum, and in view of the abnormal stocks of coal now in hand, if he will now take steps to abolish coal rationing.

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General if, in view of the unprecedentedly high stocks of solid fuel, he will immediately remove all restrictions on the sale of coal and coke to industrial and domestic consumers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): My noble Friend is anxious to end rationing as soon as possible, but before he can do so he must be satisfied that adequate supplies of coal suitable for domestic use are available from home sources. At present, stocks of such coal are no higher than last year, even though total stocks of coal of all kinds are much higher. The household allocation to take effect from 1st May, if rationing continues, will be announced shortly. There are no restrictions on coke.

Mr. Hunter: In view of the fact that the National Coal Board has stopped recruiting miners and that there are


reports of very large stocks of coal, surely the hon. Gentleman can give an approximate date?

Sir I. Horobin: I thought I had made it plain in my Answer that the two things are not really relevant. The large stocks are almost entirely of coal that cannot be burned in domestic use, so the two things have no relation one with the other.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my hon. Friend consider and, if thought fit, recommend to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor that it would pay the nation to apply the principle of the investment allowance to industry, and even to private persons in their dwellings, so as to encourage the purchase of closed stoves which will burn with great efficiency the fuel which is available in such large quantities?

Sir I. Horobin: There are a number of measures being taken along those lines, but I do not think that it would be useful at this time of year to pursue suggestions as to what might or might not be included in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Neal: Why does the Parliamentary Secretary again equivocate on the ending of rationing? Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in the country, particularly among the miners and the officials of the National Coal Board, about the present high stocks of coal? He must be aware that there are 24 million tons of coal and a considerable amount of coke and smokeless fuel in stock. If rationing is continued, will it not intensify the stock muddle?

Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Gentleman is, I know, an expert in proving that black is white, but we do not propose to have black derationing of coal to follow the confusion of the white de-rationing of sugar.

Sir J. Duncan: Referring to the wording of Question No. 31, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that if he had been in Arbroath last week-end he would have realised that winter was not at an end? There is no domestic coal in the town, so will he see that some is sent there very quickly?

Sir I. Horobin: It seems to me that the last two supplementaries rather cancel one another out.

Mr. Robens: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) has caused considerable offence inside the House and will do so out of it? Is it not the case that the Parliamentary Secretary could recommend to his right hon. Friend that, whilst the allocations of domestic coal should remain as they are, the rest of the coal supplies should be absolutely free, so that rationing could be done away with if people are prepared to take lower grades of fuel?

Sir L Horobin: There is a certain amount of truth in that, but Her Majesty's Government have already said, and I have stated it myself, that we propose as soon as it is humanly possible to end this last relic of the Socialist rationing system; and we propose to do so when it can be Bona in an orderly fashion, and not before.

Mr. Sylvester: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that coal that is dumped deteriorates rapidly with the weather and that its value, therefore, is not so high after being dumped as when it was first put down? Furthermore, the cost to the National Coal Board of first putting it down and then picking it up later, after it has deteriorated, would be obviated if he adopted the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

Sir I. Horobin: We are talking about domestic coal, and whatever happens to coal when it is put on the ground, it does not grow bigger; and the reason why this coal cannot be burnt in domestic appliances is because it is small.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise his right hon. Friend that a vast amount of what is called small coal is not, as the hon. Gentleman says, at present available for domestic use but could be converted into briquettes and into ovoids which could then be sold for domestic use? Is he aware of that? Incidentally, would it not be desirable for the hon. Gentleman to acquire a little knowledge of his subject before he comments on it?

Sir I. Horobin: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is partly correct in what he says. We hope that in due course this small coal will be made into suitable fuel by briquetting. The National Coal Board


is, in fact, urgently considering that and actually has plant under development at this moment for that purpose. But what we are considering now is whether we can deration in the next few months, and that particular piece of machinery, and that particular development—which I share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to see carried on—whatever else it does, will not affect the use of these small coals in the next few months, or even in the next year.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Taking the present stocks of domestic coal, has any calculation been made of what the price ranges would be in order to use price rather than administrative rationing to control the distribution of coal; and what are the increases that would be likely?

Sir I. Horobin: That would be a very difficult exercise, and I think it is almost impossible to be sure of the result. The National Coal Board is at present in very difficult financial circumstances and cannot afford a further overall loss. Already, in agreement with my noble Friend, it has, as the House knows, made some adjustments in that sense which, I think, have commended themselves to informed opinion all over the country. But, of course, if the Board is not to be a net loser, if it reduces the price of some coal it must put up the price of some other. That, unfortunately, would not be particularly popular, and, indeed, it would probably not be in the public interest.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Whilst recognising that, with increased mechanisation the proportion of small coal to total output is bound to increase and that the remedy is, as the Minister suggests, that there should be briquetting, may I ask if the Board will be given full freedom to invest in building the plant to extend briquetting?

Sir I. Horobin: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate in that. The National Coal Board is busily engaged—and, I am glad to say, with considerable success—in stopping the fall in the percentage of large coal. As regards the capital investment programme, the White Paper will be published very shortly, and I do not think that this is the occasion for me to enter into that topic.

Mr. A. Roberts: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the stopping of the recruiting of miners to produce large coal and the continuance of the rationing of domestic coal? Is he aware that in Canada the railways use briquettes, whereas I understand that in this country the railways have refused to use them.

Mr. Nabarro: Nonsense.

Sir I. Horobin: I think that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. As to the National Coal Board's stoppage of certain recruitment, I think that that raises very wide issues which I could not enter into in replying to a supplementary question.

Mr. Robens: If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to deration household coal for the reasons which he has stated, would he be prepared to permit the domestic use of unlimited amounts of categories of coal which are not regarded as household coal and leave the domestic user to determine whether he can usefully use this coal which is in greater supply?

Sir I. Horobin: A fundamental change in the rationing system might be very difficult if one is hoping to bring the whole rationing system to an end at a comparatively early date, but I will certainly look into the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Perhaps he will put a Question down, or I will write to him on the subject.

Exports

Mr. Hunter: asked the Paymaster-General, in view of the end of the winter season and the coal position in this country, if it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to resume coal exports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General what is the total tonnage of coal exported during the present coal year; and what are his expectations for the next contracting period.

Sir I. Horobin: There has been no cessation of coal exports and about 5·1 million tons were exported during the first ten months of the current coal year. It is too early yet to say what level will


be achieved in the forthcoming year. Increased quantities are available for export, but overseas demand is at present limited.

Mr. Hunter: In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary states that stocks are available, could he not suggest to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that this country could have an exchange with European countries in return for other goods? Surely there should be some way of exporting this coal in exchange for goods, which would help our balance of payments problem?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that is a very promising line of development. If the coal is available at a price which consumers on the Continent think is as good as that at which they can get it from anywhere and the quality is as good as they can get at that price, they will buy it without any complicated arrangements of that sort. Part of the trouble is, as other businesses have found in the past, that if one cannot satisfy one's consumers when they want something, one may find that when one wants to sell they have made arrangements to buy elsewhere.

Mr. Neal: Having mutilated the export trade to such disastrous proportions, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how long it will take for the Government to repair the damage they have done? In view particularly of the low freight rates across the Atlantic, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how long it will take to recover our traditional markets on the Continent?

Sir I. Horobin: That question is more typical of the hon. Gentleman's approach to these problems than a credit to his acquaintance with them. In fact, what happened last year and the year before, as anyone who knows anything about the coal trade is aware, is that at that time there was a coal shortage in this country and we could not afford to export a lot unless we could also import a lot at enormous expense to the National Coal Board, which would have had to be made up by increasing the price of coal still further. It is not a question of the Government having destroyed foreign markets. The coal was not there.

Production (Large Coal)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what success has been achieved since the National Coal Board began their research into the production of large coal.

Sir I. Horobin: The figures to date resulting from the drive which the Board announced last November are encouraging. While they show that the deterioration in the proportion of large coal has been arrested, a further period will be necessary before the success of this drive can be established.

Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the mechanisation installations are reacting against the industry? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I can give an instance of a case in which 2,000 to 3,000 tons of coal have been lost in the last two weeks owing to the introduction of a certain type of mechanisation?

Sir I. Horobin: Without expressing any opinion on that, we cannot conduct the technical affairs of the National Coal Board from this Box. It is a matter for the National Coal Board. If the Board has made a mistake, the hon. Gentleman must inquire there, but I am not prepared to accept that it has made a mistake.

Retired Miners (Pensions)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what proposals he has received from the National Coal Board for his approval of pension schemes for mine workers who retired between 1st January, 1947, and 1st January. 1950; and if he will make a statement.

Sir I. Horobin: Proposals have been made to my noble Friend for payment out of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme of pensions to miners who retired before the Scheme came into force on 1st January, 1952, and who, consequently, were never contributors to the Scheme. He has not felt able to give his approval as these proposals would involve departure from the established principle that such pensions should be related to contributions paid by the beneficiary, they would give preferential treatment to the mineworkers and they would have widespread repercussions on other pensions schemes.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of the handsome


compensation paid to the coal owners, those mine workers who have given a life's work in the industry are due for some compensation, particularly those who have retired during the ownership of the National Coal Board?

Sir I. Horobin: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is asking me to agree to a statement that the Socialist Government omitted to protect the rights of miners when they settled the terms of the Nationalisation Act. All I am concerned with is the present position. As I have said in my answer, we must bear in mind that all these pension schemes are inter-related; we cannot consider one without another.

Small Coal (Use)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Paymaster-General what steps he is taking to encourage consumers of scarce grades of coal to convert their plant to the use of other grades of coal which are in plentiful supply; and what effect these steps have had up to date.

Sir I. Horobin: Use of the smaller sizes of coal is being encouraged directly or indirectly by the Clean Air Act, railway electrification, the Government loan scheme and Income Tax investment allowances, the National Coal Board's pricing policy, and the offering of technical advice. These steps have played a notable part in reducing the inland use of large coal from 53 million tons in 1956 to 49 million tons last year.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, is he satisfied that, although we are making some progress, we are making sufficient progress in this matter? Will he take note of the feeling in all parts of the House that something more ought to be done in this direction?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think we ought ever to be satisfied in this difficult industry, and we are prepared, as I am sure the National Coal Board is prepared, to consider any useful constructive suggestions, but at least it is a comfort to know that some progress is being made.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary, in addition to recommending to his right hon. Friend the need for speeding up the plans of the National

Coal Board for the purpose of utilising small coal, also advise him that much of the small coal can be converted into powdered fuel for the purposes of generating electricity and thus making it unnecessary to proceed any further with hydro-electric schemes at great expense?

Sir I. Horobin: That, again, is difficult to answer very briefly. For instance, one of the hydro-electric schemes is intimately tied up with one of the proposed nuclear stations—pump storage—and I do not think the National Coal Board or the Electricity Generating Board or the A.E.A. can chop and change too rapidly in their long-term programmes as a result of what may be temporary changes in prices and conditions. All these suggestions are being considered by the technical advisers of these boards and of the Ministry, and, as I say, I think progress is being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Nuclear Power Stations

Mr. Moss: asked the Paymaster General (1) to what extent he anticipates that the development of nuclear power stations will be more rapid than was formerly anticipated; and what effect this will have upon the nation's need for coal;
(2) to what extent he proposes to increase capital investment in nuclear power stations and decrease that in the coal industry.

Sir I. Horobin: The nuclear power programme was recently rephased as part of the general revision of capital investment, so that it now provides for the installation of 5,000–6,000 MW of capacity by the end of 1966. This re-phasing will increase power station consumption of coal by some 3 million tons a year, but no further change in the programme is contemplated at present. As regards capital investment in the coal industry, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 24th March.

Mr. Moss: Is it not a fact that it is confidently anticipated by Sir Christopher Hinton, Sir John Cockcroft and Lord Citrine that the capital cost of nuclear


power stations will be reduced by something like 40 per cent. and that nuclear power stations will become increasingly efficient? In view of all that has been said this afternoon about the coal industry, surplus coal and stocks of coal, is it not time that the hon. Gentleman considered the whole question, including that of capital investment?

Sir I. Horobin: This whole question of energy and capital investment in the different branches of energy production is periodically considered, but one cannot change too frequently settled programmes or one will end with each separate section of the fuel industry either wasting money or not, in effect, producing anything except plans which will have to be altered. It is perfectly true that we do anticipate savings in the capital cost of nuclear stations, but it is not the fact that anything is yet sufficiently certain to warrant a major change in the programme in the immediate future.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the international importance of Question No. 45, plus the fact that the Leader of the House has been here waiting since three o'clock to answer it, would you, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the House asks your permission, grant him the necessary permission to answer it?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no such request.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MIS- CELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PRO- VISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

(ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the emaining Proceedings on the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill:—
1.—(a) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is committed shall report the Bill to the House on or before the first day of May, 1958;
(b) at a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion;
(c) no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill or the adjournment of the Standing Committee shall be made in the Standing Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion, if made by a Member of the Government, shall be put forthwith without any debate; and
(d) on the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
2. The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such portion of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
3. The Business Committee shall report to the House their recommendations as to the Proceedings on Consideration, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the seventh day of May, 1958.
4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause, or new Schedule, but the recommendation of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to he taken in the Standing Committee.
5. On an allotted day Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect with the substitution of references to half-past Ten of the clock for references to Ten of the clock, and Proceedings which under this Order or the Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to


a conclusion on that day shall not be interrupted under the provisions of the said Standing Order.
6. If, on any allotted day, a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) the last foregoing paragraph of this Order shall not apply, but—

(a) any Proceedings on the Bill exempted under paragraph (2) of that Standing Order shall be so exempted for the period mentioned in that paragraph and a further half-hour; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after Seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon the said Motion under Standing Order No. 9.


7. If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.
8. Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day. and shall be exempted by this paragraph from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period of three hours or, if the Proceedings on the Bill are concluded before half-past Ten o'clock, for a period (from Ten o'clock) equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings; and paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business) shall not apply.
9. Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) shall not apply to any allotted day.
10. On an allotted day no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Member of the Government and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate.
11. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or of the Business Committee or by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time so appointed, put forthwith the Question on

any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a second time, also the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and subject thereto shall proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a Member of the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules) and any Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded, and, in the case of any Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a Member of the Government, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
12. The Proceedings on any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of the Resolution of the Business Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours (or, if interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), two hours together with a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the said Motion for the Adjournment) after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph of this Order shall, so far as applicable, apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill; and if any such Motion for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of the Resolution of the Business Committee is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any Private Business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the Private Business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded.
13. Nothing in this Order or in the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being entered upon or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any Business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day, in accordance with the Standing Orders, after the completion of the Proceedings on the Bill for that day.


14. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government order of the day, "the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee, "the Resolution of the Business Committee" means the Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House, and references to the Proceedings on the Consideration or the Proceedings on Third Reading include references to any Proceedings at those stages respectively for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
I regret that it should be necessary to move this Motion. Very considerable


efforts were made by many of us to obtain voluntary agreement on a timetable for the Bill. Some of us, I think, feel that such a timetable could have been achieved by reasonable negotiation. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite discussed the matter with me—the matter has been considered at what is described as every level—but it proved impossible to find agreement on a voluntary timetable. Despite that disappointment, we are not prepared to renounce the passage of the Bill, which we intend to obtain within a reasonable time.
We have been obliged, therefore, to introduce the procedure for a timetable, to be worked out according to the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper, which follows precedent and which hands over the detailed negotiation to the Business Committee and the Business Sub-Committee, subject to the usual provision that the Bill must return from the Committee sage by 1st May.
The Bill has been followed by many of us in some detail in Committee, and it has not made the progress we should have desired. This must be considered against the background of the undoubted fact that the basic proposal contained in the Bill cannot be considered to have been, so to speak, rushed before the Committee, or to be entirely new. The principles were enunciated in a White Paper last July, and then were debated in the House.
I feel sure that Scottish Members will agree that adequate time was provided for the consideration of Scotland's particular difficulties. They are particular in this respect and the Bill is complicated. It affects the local authorities, and I should be the first to acknowledge that such matters are difficult; but the fact is that the principles have been before us for a very long time. They were embodied in the Bill now before the House, which was given a Second Reading as long ago as last December. There was then an exhaustive debate.
I fully appreciate that there are differences of opinion about the merits of the Government's proposals; I do not think that anyone would complain about that. It is a fact, however, that Parliament has, after due discussion and publication of the White Paper, approved the general principles of the Bill. It is not only the duty of the Government to see that the Bill is properly discussed, but also to see

that the Bill is brought on the Statute Book in reasonable time. The Government are entitled to claim that, if we proceed by the normal processes, we must be able to introduce a Bill at the beginning of a Session and get it passed on a reasonable timetable within the general programme, before the end of the Session.
That is a reasonable proposition, which has been acted on by previous Governments and on which we propose to act on this occasion. We have thought it right to let the Opposition know where they stand so that, from now on, they may make the best use of the time available, time which, in our view, is quite adequate for the proper consideration of the remaining provisions of the Bill.
It is not for me to say, in view of the relevant paragraphs in the Motion—particularly paragraph 1 (b) and paragraph 3, relating to the Sub-Committee and the Business Committee respectively—exactly how the time will be used. That is not our method; it is still left to negotiation. But supposing that about 19 Sittings become possible on the Bill in Standing Committee as a whole, that would be equal to eight whole Sittings of the House, and I should have thought that, on a Bill of this size, time equivalent to what is usually allotted to a Finance Bill would represent an adequate opportunity for proper consideration in Committee, leaving Report and Third Reading until a later stage. I mention this without prejudice to the final decision by the Sub-Committee under paragraph 1 (b) and the Business Committee under paragraph 3, because they will ultimately decide how the time is to be allotted; but I believe that there will be time for adequate opportunity to discuss the Bill.
There is a further reason why the Government regard it as important to make clear what are their intentions about the passage of the Bill and the time when it shall be passed. The Bill will affect all the Scottish local authorities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They do not want it.

Mr. Butler: Whether they want it or not, it will affect them. A good many things in life happen like that.
The Bill requires us to consult the local authority associations in the preparation of what is described as the


general grant order, that is to say, to determine the amount of the general grant to be payable in the period beginning 16th May, 1959. We want to get the Bill on the Statute Book, as I said, before the end of the Session, and also to meet the local authority associations as soon as the Bill is passed in order to embark on the necessary calculations which will be required before the general grant order can be prepared.
There is, therefore, a reason for our having a forecast of the time involved, so that we may make these consultations and the administration of Scotland can be carried on with that efficiency which we associate with the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be winding up the debate at, I hope, a comparatively early hour.
The Opposition have made it clear that they intend to oppose the Bill as rigorously as they can, as they undoubtedly have an absolute right to do. It is our privilege also to take account of the disposition of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have noticed, in their disposition, that special kind of Scottish dialectic—I will not call it obstruction or filibustering—which seems to descend from ancient fathers of thought in Scotland, and has descended so eloquently upon the shoulders of some hon. Members opposite.
Whatever that may be, coming as it does from a very ancient Scottish tradition, it seems to indicate to those of us who are of ordinary and moderate intelligence that hon. Members opposite intend to spend some time—shall we say, to linger?—over the Clauses at the beginning of the Bill and sometimes over Amendments which, if I have studied the proceedings of the Standing Committee aright, have very little prospect of success. If this procedure were to continue—and it has many merits to recommend it—

Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the English Standing Committee, which has all the virtues which are denied the Scots, took 11 sittings to reach the place with the English Bill where we are now, with the Scottish Bill, after nine sittings?

Mr. Butler: I have studied each aspect of the matter. In the case of the English

Bill, which I did not wish to bring into the discussion—being half Scottish myself, I wished to keep the discussion wholly Scottish—it was possible to reach an agreement for a voluntary timetable, which, as I have said earlier, we should have preferred. If the Scottish Members had been able to reach an agreement, then it would not have been necessary to have this Motion.
The fact is that if we go on at this pace we shall be holding up this beneficent Measure. The progress made with the Bill in Committee certainly endorses and supports this view. The Government are determined, therefore, that if we are to get the Bill on the Statute Book in reasonable time we must take the necessary steps to see that this is done. The timetable itself says that the Bill must be reported back by 1st May. Then the Bill has to return to the House for Report and Third Reading, for which two days are allowed.
The Business Committee—not the SubCommittee—shall, according to paragraph 3,
report to the House their recommendations as to the Proceedings on Consideration, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the seventh day of May, 1958.
The object of that provision is to give the Business Committee an opportunity of seeing the extent to which the Bill is amended in Committee, to study, if possible, what Amendments are put down and then to allocate the time for the remaining stages of the Bill. The timetable, according to recent precedent, is elastic, and I hope that advantage will be taken of that elasticity and that the Sub-Committee, in framing the work for the Committee stage, and the Business Committee later, in framing the later stages, will listen to all reasonable requests of the Opposition and that this may lead to a rational consideration of the later stages of the Bill.
One or two Scottish hon. Members have, quite legitimately, said—I am putting it in rather pleasant language, but they have put it in rather forceful language; but I think we are all getting at the same thing—what a pity it is that when the Standing Committee has just been set up under the new rules we should have had to move a timetable Motion. I said that myself when dealing with the Business statement on Thursday. I


definitely feel that, and I am sure that that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
However, we have to balance against that the fact that this is an exceedingly complicated Measure. It is well known to be a complicated Measure.

Mr. John Rankin: Then let us discuss it.

Mr. Butler: It is susceptible of an indefinite discussion, and it is clear to us that hon. Members opposite are determined to take advantage of every opportunity of discussing it. Therefore, we have to balance what we hope will be the smooth working of the new machinery for discussing Scottish affairs in the Standing Committee against the undoubted work which Scottish Members will have to do in the course of the Session. For example, this Bill was the follower-on of a Bill which took rather longer than we expected in Grand Committee, namely, the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill. That is a legitimate point for the Opposition. I am trying to deal with this matter rationally.
I do not believe these timetable Motions are such tragedies as some people think. We have to balance on the other side that the Scottish Grand Committee, under the new arrangement, will have six Supply days—some of which have already been taken—plus two days for consideration of other Motions. Thus, Scottish Members will be very fully occupied, and in looking at the time of not only Scottish Members, but of other hon. Members on all sides of the House, I think that it is legitimate that this Bill should take its normal place in the programme and not an exaggerated place. If we are to have the attention of Scottish Members to the other business to which we wish them to pay attention, it is probably better to have the timetable oulined for this Bill so that not only Scottish Members but also the House and the Government know where they are.
Therefore, in moving the timetable Motion, I believe that we are in accord with something which came out in our debate on the procedure of the House, namely, that procedure should be as efficient as possible with the maximum regard for the proper use of time; and I believe that when we reach a position like this it is wise to resort to a timetable.

While I do not doubt that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may put their case with force, which is always the tradition in discussing a timetable Motion, I do not believe they need put it with bitterness, because I believe that it is possible so to work our procedure according to a timetable that proper consideration is given to the main points of a Bill and that we may, in fact, get a better balance of consideration when a Committee works on a Bill to a timetable than without one. That is why a voluntary timetable is preferable. If we cannot get a voluntary timetable, I think the one arranged by the Business Committee and the Business Sub-Committee, as set out in the Motion, is the best way to do it.
I have discussed this matter in detail with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He asks me to affirm that it is his wish that the vital points shall be adequately discussed. Therefore, as I believe that in present circumstances this will fit in best with this particular Bill, and not only with the mood of the House but with the mood of the Committee, and will result in the efficient transaction of Government business, I commend the Motion to the House.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Leader of the House has once again had to come to the rescue of the Scottish Ministers to save them from their own incompetence. He did this about a year ago with a timetable Motion for the Rent Bill. It was a Motion to curtail the consideration of Scottish Clauses amending Scottish legislation which ought really to have been embodied in a Scottish Bill, and on that occasion four Scottish Members of the Opposition were unable to give adequate consideration to the Scottish Clauses. Now the right hon. Gentleman moves a timetable Motion in respect of the remainder of the Committee stage of the present Bill.
On the earlier occasion the Secretary of State was in a great hurry to get the Scottish Part of the Rent Bill through "because it was so much wanted in Scotland." Since that Bill became an Act we have had the by-election at Kelvin-grove, the constituency which was represented by probably the most respected Tory in Scotland, the late Walter Elliot; and we all know the result of that by-election. However, the Secretary of State


seems to be unmoved by what the people of Scotland think.
This is the first ever timetable to be imposed on a purely Scottish Committee. I hope that the Secretary of State is pleased with himself. I should have thought that he would be ashamed of having to do this at the present time. The Leader of the House has said that the Bill is a complicated Measure. Of course it is complicated. It is also a Bill of very considerable constitutional importance to Scotland.
Why are we being guillotined? Why is this timetable Motion being introduced? The Leader of the House said that Scottish Members had decided to linger over the early Clauses of the Bill. Scottish Members spent less than five sittings of the Committee on Clause 1. English Members spent nine sittings of their Committee on a comparable Clause in the English Bill. They had nine sittings on Clause 1, we had less than five. We have, therefore, done our work twice as quickly as our English colleagues and we are being guillotined.

Mr. James Stuart: What about the Goschen formula?

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), from his seated position, seems to think that we should have had the Goschen formula. eleven-eightieths of the time of our English colleagues, to consider a Bill which is just as important to Scotland as the English Bill is to England.

Mr. Ross: The Bill wipes out the Goschen formula.

Mr. Fraser: There are a lot of things that the right hon. Gentleman does not realise.
The Secretary of State will agree that the first two Clauses of the Bill—and we are getting near to the end of Clause 2 after nine sittings, whereas the English Committee took nine sittings for Clause 1—are the most important in the Bill. It is true that they give effect to the principle of the Bill, but none the less they are capable of amendment and, indeed, Amendments have been made to them.
When the Bill went into Committee, nobody thought that we would get

through the first two Clauses quickly. Everybody knew that they would take a considerable time. Because we have done our work on the first two Clauses, I hope, reasonably well is no reason why we should be denied an adequate opportunity of discussing the later Clauses and, in particular, the Schedules, which are of tremendous importance to local authorities in Scotland.
We might have made even more progress on the Bill if Ministers had done their homework. They came to the Committee without being adequately briefed on the Amendments which the Committee was about to consider. They delayed the proceedings in Committee by failing to listen to the debate. They allowed debates to run on for hours at an end and then, after the debate had run for hours, spread over two sittings, Ministers agreed that there was point in the Amendment and that they would take the matter back for consideration.
If Ministers had listened to the first few speeches on the Amendment, they would have realised that we were speaking for the local authorities, they would have undertaken to have the matter looked at and we could have made progress. Instead, the Ministers wasted the time of the Scottish Committee by giving us irrelevant answers to our questions. They gave us replies which sometimes bore no relevance whatever to the speeches which had been made in putting forward the Amendments.
On one occasion, the Joint Under-Secretary offended every Scottish Member of Parliament and the whole of Scotland when he gave as his reason for refusing a reasonable Amendment to the Bill that to have done so and to have made the Amendment in question would have made the Bill different from the English Bill. When we were given the Bill to consider in Committee upstairs, we thought that we were permitted to discuss it on its merits and that we were not obliged to produce a Bill identical in every respect with the English Bill. If we are not to be allowed to discuss the Bill on its merits, and to make what Amendments the Members of the Committee see fit to make, there is no point in carrying on with the Committee stage of the Bill.
We have never appreciated that our legislation should be exactly similar to


legislation south of the Border. As I ventured to point out to the Joint Under-Secretary on that occasion, the only justification for the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretaries is that our Scottish law is different to the English law. That is the whole justification for the office which the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretaries hold.
Then, as another example of delay, we have had the utmost discourtesy in the Committee. Last Tuesday, we had a speech from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), his first speech in Committee on the Bill. Following that speech by the Leader of the Liberal Party, on an important Amendment put forward by the Opposition, the Minister in charge of the Bill promptly moved the Closure. He was not only gagging the Labour Members of the Committee, but he gagged the Liberal Party, also.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In the same week as the Torrington by-election.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, in the same week as Torrington. Immediately we had had a speech from the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Secretary of State moved the Closure. Of course, the weary knights and baronets meekly earned their honours by supporting the Secretary of State's Motion.
The truth is that the Opposition speak for all the local authorities in Scotland on the Bill. The Leader of the House rather understated the position when he said that there were differences of opinion on the merits of the Bill. The difference of opinion is a difference between the Government and Scotland. Nobody in Scotland wants the Bill.

Sir Ian Clark Hutchison: Edinburgh does.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member who represents Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) says that Edinburgh wants it.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: And South Edinburgh.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member's relative, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison), appears to want the Bill, too. There was one local authority in Scotland which accepted the principle of block grant, and that was Edinburgh, but Edinburgh has

wanted some of the Amendments which the hon. Members who represent the Edinburgh constituencies on the Government side have voted against in Committee. The Leader of the House asserted that there were differences of opinion on the merits of the Bill. The difference really is between the Government and the whole Scottish nation. Scotland does not want the Bill. This has been made painfully clear to the Secretary of State.
The Leader of the House justified the timetable with the words that we wanted to get the Bill through. He called it "this beneficent Measure". It has not been so regarded by the local authorities in Scotland. They would rather be without this beneficence, if that is how the right hon. Gentleman would like to describe it. Since they are so wholly opposed to the provisions of the Bill, it seems to us that we should have adequate time without any automatic curtailment of the discussion during the Committee stage. By gagging the Opposition, the Government are guilty of gagging the whole of Scotland. They are gagging the nation.
We on the Opposition benches have not opposed additional sittings. We have not shirked our responsibility. Not only on this Bill, but when dealing with legislation in an earlier Session, legislation which also was opposed by the local authorities in Scotland, we on this side have shown that we are prepared to devote plenty of time to doing our job We have shown our willingness to sit all night dealing with the Committee stage of Bills that greatly affect the local authorities of Scotland. The Government supporters, however, are not as willing to do their work for their constituents. They want short sittings of the Committee and not too many of them.
The Lord Privy Seal said that the Scottish Committee had a lot of work to do. We are anxious to do our work. The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that we would not be over-anxious to spend time unnecessarily on the Bill if it were to deny to the Opposition its right to select subjects for debate on eight sittings of the Scottish Committee in any one session. That is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said. The Government cannot be expected to be so very anxious to save the time for the Opposition for these general debates.
The Opposition will look after that themselves. We are not going to deny ourselves the opportunity of debating in the Scottish Grand Committee matters of great importance to Scotland, unless, of course, the importance of other matters before us makes it impossible for us to get through our work in Standing Committee. However, we should be anxious to get through our work in Standing Committee to enable us to do the other work which is ours as Scottish Members.
The Committee, according to the Motion, has to report on or before 1st May—Labour Day all over the world.

Mr. Ross: Maclay day.

Mr. Fraser: We have to do so whether the Bill has been adequately considered in all its details or not. The first sitting of the Committee under the Guillotine will take place tomorrow, 1st April—All Fools' Day indeed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us tomorrow that this has been a hunt the gowk. The electors of Scotland are saying that we should hunt the Secretary of State.

Mr. Rankin: They will.

Mr. Thomas: They will whenever given the opportunity.
The Government do not want the Bill discussed in detail at all. They had no mandate to introduce the Bill. They have no democratic right to force it through. The Secretary of State ought by now to have learned the lessons of the Rent Act. He knows that he will never operate the Bill. The electors do not want the Bill. If they were given the opportunity to express an opinion about it both he and his Bill would go.
The only course in decency for the Secretary of State now is to persuade his right hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion and himself to withdraw the Bill. If that advice is spurned we on these benches will have no alternative but to vote against the Motion.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: It is not at all surprising that the Leader of the House has no back bench support on his side of the House for this Motion. We in the Scottish Standing Committee have become accustomed to this lack of support for the Government by their back benchers. It has become farcical to think that any debate is going on there at all.

On the contrary, we have had a continuous period of silence on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Committee on the Bill which, according to the admission of the Leader of the House, is a most important Bill.
There have been only three participants from the Government back benches in the discussions in the Committee. Two of them were critical of the Government. We have had the suggestion from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) that the Government were mere stooges and lackeys of the Treasury. He reminded the Secretary of State and the junior Ministers that they should be more than just tools of bureaucracy. I think that it was after he made that speech that the Secretary of State made his accustomed speech, "I beg to move, That the Question be now put".
The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) intervened, I think, on two occasions. The purport of his remarks was to suggest that the Secretary of State should think again about an Amendment we had moved, whereupon the Secretary of State rose and moved, "That the Question be now put".
We have had from the Secretary of State a wonderful demonstration of the complexities of the Bill. He has spoken on six occasions in the Committee on the Bill. All his speeches take up about a column in HANSARD. There was one rejecting an Amendment, one accepting an Amendment, and the other four were all rather repetitive, "I beg to move, That the Question be now put." So we have had no enlightenment from the Secretary of State upon the complexities of the Measure. We have felt none of his powers of persuasion.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart)—I do not know whether he is the deputy leader of the National Liberals or not—has been the only one, apart from Ministers, who has had anything at all to say in favour of the Bill. Every other hon. Member opposite has been silent.
What is the position? We are dealing with an important Bill, which, in the words of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in the debate on the Second Reading, is
inspired by the policy on which we have fought and won two General Elections and on which we shall go on winning "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957; Vol. 580. c. 332.]


Since then they have lost three by-elections.
The fact is that the Government have had no mandate for the Bill. They were discredited before ever they introduced it. That has been emphasised in by-election after by-election. Apart from some reservations I must make for Edinburgh, every local authority in Scotland is opposed to the Bill. The Bill is completely friendless. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Pollok remembers what he said on Second reading? He said that the Bill was
without friends outside the House. The local authorities are against it, the teaching profession is against it, and industry is against it …
He went on to say something important to the consideration of this timetable:
It is up to us, perhaps more than usual because of that consensus of opinion against the Bill, to prove our case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957, Vol. 580, c. 247–8.]
What does that mean? It means that there must be full consideration in Committee of all the important matters affected by the Bill. Is anyone prepared to say, apart from the Leader of the House, who obviously does not know, that the consideration we have had in Committee so far has been anything other than reasonably adequate? We make no complaint about the position up to now.
We have had nine sittings and we have gone practically through two Clauses. We had an acknowledgment by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), that we did very well. When we came to the fifth sitting he said:
It has been a long debate and undoubtedly it has been useful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 13th March, 1958; c. 196.]
There is no complaint about having those sittings to consider Clause 1.
What has happened about Clause 2? As I said on Thursday, the timetable is evidence of the incompetence of the Government. I would ask the leader of the House to consider particularly the debate on an Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). My hon. Friend had a reply from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Craigton (Mr. J. N. Browne), in which the hon. Gentleman gave an interpretation

of what would happen if certain words were omitted from the Clause. After a debate so long that it occupies 30 columns of HANSARD the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was completely wrong. The debate was carried on another day, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland got up once again and, although he said he was very sorry that he had misplaced a word or two, in substance he said the same thing again, that the Joint Under-Secretary of State was wrong. Naturally, when we have confusing and conflicting information from the Government themselves it tends to prolong debate.
That debate was cut short by the return of the Secretary of State to move the Closure, without that matter having been properly dealt with. We have confusion because of the confusing and distorted replies by the Government, and then the gagger from Gourock, Huey Long, comes in to move the Closure. It is really not good enough, when we are dealing with a Bill which will affect every local authority in Scotland.
It covers a very wide range of affairs. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, it took the Standing Committee, on the English counter-part to our Measure, very much longer to reach that stage at which we in the Scottish Committee now are. Moreover, there is matter in the first two Clauses of the Bill which is not contained in the first two Clauses of the English Bill, the question of the Goschen formula which is now to be wiped out as a result of Clauses 1 and 2.
A mainstay of the financing of education in Scotland for generations is now to be wiped out. Consideration of that did not arise upon the English Bill. Considering this important difference between the first two Clauses of the two Bills we could justifiably have spent far more time than we have in the Scottish Standing Committee upon the first two Clauses of the Bill and longer, indeed, than Standing Committee D took over the first two Clauses of the English Bill.
I accuse the Leader of the House of being unduly flippant. He has shown a condescending complacency. I should have thought that his recent visit to Glasgow would have made him take the Scots a little more seriously. I do not


know whether he was impressed by the Scots. They certainly made one or two impressions on him.
We have not got into such a state with a Bill that the Government should be concerned to shorten discussion. Scotland's leading newspaper admitted the other week that we were, in fact, discussing the Goschen formula. It said that it and many people in Scotland realised that this was not such a simple, straightforward Bill as they had thought.
It is not good enough for the Leader of the House to say that the Government think that there will be reasonable time. Has he worked the thing out? The Committee has sat nine times and is due to sit twice this week. There are four more regular sittings available before 1st May, if we discount the Tuesday of Budget day, when we return. If we included Wednesday sittings that would provide three more. Therefore, there will be a total of 15, or at the most 18 sittings of the Committee, if Wednesdays, to which we rightly object, are included.
We must consider this matter in proportion to the time devoted to other Measures. The Government did not move the Closure during the Committee stage of the Slaughterhouses Bill. Will anyone suggest that the Slaughterhouses Bill is more important than this Bill? I am sure that the Leader of the House cannot say how many times the Committee on the Slaughterhouses Bill met. I will tell him. The Committee had 24 sittings. Therefore, on the basis of the time apportioned to it, that Bill appears to be much more important than the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill.
What will Scottish people think about that? What will they think of a Secretary of State who allows that kind of thing to happen? What about the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill? The Leader of the House gave the impression that this Bill was introduced at the beginning of the Session and, therefore, it was only right that the Government should have the Bill by the end of the Session. The Second Reading took place in the middle of December, but we started the Committee stage in the last week of February and then came the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, which took up ten sittings of the Scottish Standing Committee.
That Bill involves a trivial amount of drainage in Scotland, at a cost of no more than £20,000 to the taxpayer, whereas the Bill which we are now considering deals with the whole education system, the safety and welfare of children, the fire service, police, road patrols, and so on. And we are to be given about 18 sittings of the Committee, provided that we work on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and, therefore, deny ourselves the opportunity of participating in other matters in relation to the House of Commons.
Is the Leader of the House proud of this? Does he want to know why the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill occupied 10 Committee sittings? If he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage, he will find once again that same confusion, that same conflicting attitude to Amendments and to the meaning of the statute on the part of the Scottish Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "And read the Tory speeches."] Yes, there were speeches by the Tories, because we were dealing with a landlords' Bill. It gave another subsidy to the landlords and, therefore, we heard plenty from the property owners' representatives in the Committee.
We have been gagged. Discussions on the Bill have been stifled, and I can think of two or three real reasons for it. The Government do not want discussion because they do not want the Scottish people to know the truth about the Bill. It is only recently that people have come to realise the truth of what is happening in relation to the Goschen formula as a result of the Bill.
It was left to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Craigton to reveal the second reason, and he is not a Scotsman, anyway. He said that a certain Amendment could not be accepted because the matter had been decided by the Committee which was considering the equivalent English Bill. He said more. He implied that the Opposition could not secure acceptance of any Amendment on the whole of Clause 2 because that Clause must go through, word for word and condition for condition, for Scotland as it had been accepted for England.
Will the hon. Gentleman take the trouble to read what he said?

Mr. James It Hoy: The hon. Gentleman was reading what he said when he said it.

Mr. Ross: The Joint Under-Secretary said:
The subject raised in these Amendments was discussed in Committee on the English Bill … it would be wise and in Scotland's interests that the calculations for the grant"—
that is, the whole of Clause 2—
should be made at the same time in both England and Scotland and on a comparative basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1958; c. 160.]
That means that no Amendment to Clause 2 will be accepted.
We can well understand why the Government want a time table. They regard it as a waste of time to discuss a matter which has been discussed and decided already by another Committee. The Secretary of State has no desire to listen to the protests of local authorities in Scotland. He has no desire to listen to hon. Members, not even his hon. Friends, because the matter has been decided already. That is a very valid reason why the Government want to have discussion of the Bill over as quickly as possible.
Another reason for their wanting a timetable is that they want to limit their hon. Friends' embarrassment. I wonder whether my hon. Friends recollect some of the speeches made on Second Reading. The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said that she would be concerned that Aberdeen received its due. She has not made a speech since in Committee, not said a word. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) was concerned to ensure that under the formula his county council should be enabled to maintain its high traditions in education. As he saw it, there would be a considerable deficiency. That part of the Bill, of course, will be subject to the Closure and discussion will be gagged. It will come under the timetable and the hon. Member for Banff; who has sat in silence since the Committee first started to discuss the Bill, waiting to deliver that speech, will not be allowed to deliver it.
The hon. Member for Pollok spoke of the rerating of industry, a matter which struck him as being most important. That subject has not yet been reached and discussed in Committee. The Government intend to rerate industry by only

25 per cent. On Second Reading, the hon. Member said that industry should pay 100 per cent. rates. Will he have an opportunity of saying that in Committee and of moving an Amendment, which I am sure will be in his name and which I shall support? I cannot say that he will have the support of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby). He has been excluded from the Committee. He has been gagged already.
The hon. Gentleman has been denied the right that he has always enjoyed as a member of the Scottish Standing Committee. He is a man who has had that right longer than the rest of us, since, in fact, 1924. Until this Bill came before the Committee he had a right to go there, and he has done so on odd occasions and given us the benefit of telling us how he felt. That right was taken away from him by the Leader of the House. He, with another 23 Scottish Members, were gagged from the start. They were excluded from the Committee, and now those on it are to be gagged still further.
When the Leader of the House introduced this Motion he said it would he for the benefit of Scotland and of Scottish Members. I can remember the Secretary of State for Scotland telling us that the new procedure would make the Committee much more manageable. Yet the first Bill to be discussed after it is one in which the Government introduce a Guillotine to ensure that Scottish Members will be silenced on matters vitally affecting Scotland. The Bill is a complex one and, because of that, there should be full discussion. There is no reason why that full discussion should be fitted into a preconceived pattern of legislation, that pattern being laid down more by the bungling of the Government than by anything else.
This happens every year. The Government bungle their legislative programme, and the back bench Members from Scotland have to suffer. I have no doubt that we shall be told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that his right hon. Friend is the best Secretary of State we have. I think that the hon. Gentleman remains in his position because he is the cheer leader for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman told us that the previous Secretary


of State would go down in history. He went down, quicker than we thought. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will say the same for the present Minister.

Mr. J. Stuart: Where did he go?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) made far more and much more coherent speeches as a back bencher than he ever made when on the Front Bench. We have just had another one.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should think again and withdraw not only this Motion but also the Bill. On May Day—or Maclay Day, whatever he likes to call it—the right hon. Gentleman probably has an important engagement. He is probably going to—[An HON. MEMBER: "Torrington."] No, I call it National Libbington—to address a rally of his diminishing number of National Liberal supporters.
The right hon. Gentleman is the Leader of the National Liberal Party, and it is typical National Liberalism to stifle free discussion. I suggest that he goes away again, talks with his National Liberal friends and Scottish Members—the Knights of the Scottish Table—and decides that if National Liberalism is to mean anything at all the first thing to do is to withdraw this Motion. Secondly, he should accede to the demands of the Scottish local authorities and withdraw the Bill. Thirdly, he should accede to the wishes of the people of Kelvingrove and withdraw himself and his hon. Friends from the control of affairs in Scotland.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: It is a matter of deep regret and certainly one for the strongest of protests that the Government should have placed this Motion on the Order Paper. Not merely does it demand that the Bill must be finished in Committee by 1st May, but if hon. Members will look at the Motion they will see it goes further in that it also shows that
… no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill or the adjournment of the Standing Committee shall be made in the Standing Committee. …
As I understand, this means that a Motion to report Progress so that the Opposition may have a further oppor-

tunity of at least making known their point of view on procedure will be denied to them.
First, I want to put a point to the Joint Under-Secretary and to challenge him. Has any responsible member of the Government Front Bench indicated, or protested at any time about obstruction coming from the Opposition benches? Have the Government, by as much as a sentence, indicated that time was pressing or that there was great urgency in getting the Bill through? I can speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House in this matter, and I can say sincerely that there has been no organised obstruction to this Bill since the beginning of our discussions upon it. For the Leader of the House to say that, whether the local authorities or the Opposition like it or not, the Government intend to enact this Bill is foreign to his own personal attitude to our democratic affairs.
If it were to be argued that there has been obstruction in the Scottish Standing Committee that would be a reflection on its Chairman, in that it was his duty to report to the authorities of the House that obstruction was taking place. If, however, no one rises to deny that, my first point is established, namely, that there have not even been allegations of obstruction or of filibustering by the Opposition from the Government benches. What the Government are saying, in effect, is that whatever the Opposition say, however good the arguments put forward, the Government will get their Bill in any case by a certain date.
This raises an important point, whether the line is being crossed in a political democracy when discussion is stifled by moving a Motion of this character. We are on extremely dangerous ground. It means that, whatever criticisms we want to make, and even if we go into the Division Lobby, when the day is over the Government will facetiously remark to us, "You were on good ground, you had a good point. Hard luck, old fellow, but the Government must have their way."
This is no way to proceed with our business, and the Scottish people and the Scottish local authorities will pay great attention to the way in which our business is being rushed through, without proper discussion of the fundamental question of financial arrangements between the cen-


tral Government and the local authorities. This Motion seems to betray the Government's lack of desire to make concessions. It indicates their lack of regard for, and refusal to listen to, arguments or convictions, and it shows the lamentable intolerance of those who are saying that the Bill is conferring freedom on the local authorities. What rubbish all this is. It is sheer hypocrisy and a sham.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, this is the first time the Guillotine Motion has been moved in respect of the Scottish Standing Committee. Since when has it been a crime for a Committee to discuss legislation in detail? Since when has it been a crime, after the broad principles of a Bill have been decided on Second Reading, for a Committee to discuss it line by line and comma by comma, if that seems to be necessary?
The Guillotine comes as a blessed relief to the Secretary of State and his colleagues and affords them some escape from the necessity of meeting the arguments of the Opposition. It is no more than a cloak for the inconsistency and obscurity of the Government's answers. The Motion will no doubt appeal to the lazy and to the second-raters who are not prepared to make a contribution to our discussions. There are two or three very honourable exceptions among hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) supported an Opposition Amendment about the importance of district councils and asked the Secretary of State to reconsider the Government's attitude; but there was no response from the Government.
If the Committee is to be forced to meet as often as it intended, what is to become of the previous objections from the other side of the House to meeting on Wednesdays when the private affairs of hon. Members opposite interfere with the affairs of the Scottish Committee? One could refer to the number of times on which such a Motion as this has been moved. The Leader of the House himself, with a wry smile, suggested that occasions when the Labour Government had moved a similar Motion had influenced the present decision.
However, it should at least be made clear that before the Labour Party came into office, it said that it had a certain programme to carry through, and on only three occasions in six years was a

Guillotine Motion moved. In six years under the present Government, the Guillotine Motion has been used seven times. When the Labour Government were forced into using a Guillotine Motion, the present Secretary of State for Scotland spoke against it. He is now shamelessly backing this Motion, in spite of having spoken fervently against similar Motions in the past. The more the Government lose their authority in the country, the more they rely on measures like this to force through legislation.
Speaking on the Guillotine Motion on the Iron and Steel Bill in 1948, the present Secretary of State said that he had two excuses for speaking in the debate. One was that he was the only representative of the Liberal Party present that afternoon. [An HON. MEMBER: "National Liberal."] It is very important to get these terms clear, whether a Member is a National Liberal, or a Liberal National. or a Liberal National Conservative. That is most important, because from time to time it influences the conclusions of Members on the problems which confront them.
In 1948, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had two excuses for speaking—that was how he put it. One was that he was the Liberal representative in the House at the time. Although I read through the rest of the debate, I could not discover his second excuse. Perhaps we may have it now, even if somewhat belatedly. In that debate, referring to an hon. Member on the then Government benches who had preceded him, the right hon. Gentleman said:
That might he true in the case of the Second or Third Reading … but surely the hon. Gentleman and I have come here not just to state our views for and against different proposals. We have come here to try to construct sound legislation, whether we are supporters of the Government or Members of the Opposition. For this purpose the Guillotine procedure is disastrous. If this was purely a question of expressing our views for or against there might he a lot in what the hon. Gentleman said, but we are trying to produce decent legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November. 1948: Vol. 458, c. 1484.]
That is a most appropriate quotation, especially in view of the vital importance to Scotland of this legislation, bearing as it does with such emphasis on the relationships between Government and local authorities and, in turn, the services which they provide.
I must explain that in 1940–50 the right hon. Gentleman was then a Liberal National—in that order. Since 1950, he has been a National Liberal and Conservative, and there is a distinction. If that is wrong, the right hon. Gentleman had better correct it in "Who's Who" and other reference works, because that is how he is described. I could describe him another way, if I were not within the precincts of the House of Commons. All that shows the deterioration which can take place in people's nature and attributes. It all depends on the people with whom they mix and whom they meet.
In the debate on the Guillotine on the Transport Bill, the right hon. Gentleman made the point that in 11 sittings only five Clauses had been discussed. That is the exact opposite of his other argument. In that speech, he referred to the then Minister keeping an eye on his back benchers to keep them quiet. He expressed the view that
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter.
The right hon. Gentleman smiles. He recognises the quotation. In music, there is a better way of putting it:
The rests are as eloquent as the notes themselves.
From his back benchers, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been much eloquent silence.
If the Leader of the House will listen to me, I can give him one or two reasons for what he has called the delays. Some of the things which have taken place have been more responsible for the alleged delay that anything the Opposition have said or done. For instance, the Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) actually apologised to the Committee on one occasion for not getting to his feet quickly enough to answer a point.
After only one speech had been made in support of an Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said:
I had hoped that we were to hear an answer to the very careful argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis),
upon which the Joint Under-Secretary of State rose to say:
I apologise to the Committee for not having been as quick on my feet as I should

have been; but I thought that there would have been other supporters of the Amendment.
He was actually inviting and inciting us to speak.
I am very serious about this. The delay is due to the incompetent and very ineffective speeches from Ministers, although they were not unrehearsed. Later, the other Joint Under-Secretary said:
That is dead now."—
referring to subsection (3)—
If hon. Members will look at page 21 of the Bill, paragraph 6 (2) of the Fourth Schedule, they will see that subsection (3) was intended to be added there. That would have been subsection (3). He will also have seen, if he looks at the Order Paper, that it is proposed to remove that from the Bill, so that it will never come into operation at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 4th March, 1958, c. 61–76.]
I am untutored in the way of Government Departments, but I think that I have the ordinary common sense of the layman in understanding what words mean and what Ministers say, although I find it extremely difficult to do so in this case. The Minister actually said that subsection (3) was stillborn—which may have been an allusion to the "wretched child".
I want to mention another important matter concerning the consent of the Treasury. When one of my hon. Friends asked whether it was not right that a Treasury Minister should be present to reply to the debate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) said that the Treasury was represented by a junior Lord of the Treasury, namely, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White).
I am not casting any aspersions upon the ability of the hon. Member for Rutherglen, but I say that it was inhuman and quite wrong of the hon. Member to suggest that the hon. Member for Rutherglen should assist the Government—because he has been running about half demented trying to keep a quorum for the Government. It was a result of the Government's being unable to maintain a quorum that the Chairman had to suspend the proceedings at our last sitting. That sort of conduct brings the Committee into disrepute in the eyes of the people of Scotland. It is certainly not dignified, to say the least.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has already referred to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), who wanted the words
prevailing in Scotland as a whole.
to be withdrawn. I shall not enter into the merits or demerits of the matter, but the Joint Under-Secretary said:
We believe, and we think we are right, that we should write into the Bill that Scottish conditions should be taken into account.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said, however, later the Solicitor-General for Scotland said:
If the words 'prevailing in Scotland as a whole' were left out of this paragraph it is most unlikely that any fluctuation in England could possibly effect the provisions of the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 18th March, 1958, c. 274–80.]
I hope that the Leader of the House has noted those words. If that is what is to happen, how are we to proceed with our business? Why should the Opposition be saddled with the charge of having talked about this important Bill for so long?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) told the Committee that the Secretary of State had given him an assurance—perhaps not in the Committee itself—that he would give serious consideration to the proposition which my hon. Friend put to him and would reply at the next meeting of the Committee, but we went on for half an hour, and no member of the Government even attempted to reply to the further points made, or to give any assurance about the result of that consultation or gestation, and I believe that another Closure was moved.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Leader of the House is sorry that he introduced the Motion. I hope that there will be some heart-searchings and further inquiry behind the scenes to discover whether the Motion is necessary. The first three Clauses of the Bill are important, and if the discussion upon them could have gone on for a little longer the Government would have had no cause to complain of their treatment by the Opposition—because hon. Members on this side are more concerned about local authorities than hon. Members

opposite. We know the troubles which are confronting them because of the financial implications of the Bill. I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting against the Motion.

4.48 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: My Scotsman tells me today that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are angry with the Government about the Guillotine Motion. I have not seen any signs of anger among them. Not one lock of the hair of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was displaced in the course of his speech.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Here is one who is very angry.

Sir J. Duncan: And as for the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—he was more humorous than I have heard him before in my life. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) was argumentative, but certainly not angry. It is plain that the Opposition now are as synthetic as the Conservative Opposition were in the days of the 1948 Parliament. This is just one of those Parliamentary performances which have to be gone through, and which are better got over fairly quickly.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock speaks often enough; he might listen to what I am saying instead of having a debate with his hon. Friend. He talked about my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) not being on the Committee, and, therefore, being gagged. I am not on the Committee, either, but I do not feel gagged. I had opportunities to speak during the Second Reading debate, and I can speak again on Report if I wish to do so. I can also make a speech in the Third Reading debate.
I do not feel in the least that I have been gagged by being put off the Scottish Standing Committee for the sake of this Bill. I do not want to go into the reasons why I got off. It took some doing. None the less I am glad to know that I am on the Committee which will consider the Agriculture Bill. Because I am one of those interested in other subjects and wish to have the chance to take an interest in a Committee on other subjects, I am glad that I shall be on that Committee and, therefore, able to speak


up for Scotland in another sphere; instead of being tied to the Scottish Standing Committee, which would have made it impossible for me to take an interest in the proceedings of two Committees at the same time.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Sir J. Duncan: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman speaks quite enough.
I understand that the Committee dealing with the English Bill, which is a bigger Bill than the Scottish Measure and deals with boundaries as well as financial provisions, has now got to Clause 54 if not beyond, while the Scottish Committee has gone only half-way through Clause 2. Admittedly, the Scottish Committee started its deliberations a little later than the Committee discussing the English Bill. But the Committee discussing the English Bill has conducted its business on a voluntary timetable.

Mr. T. Fraser: We had nine meetings of the Scottish Standing Committee and reached Clause 2. The Committee discussing the English Bill after nine meetings had got only to the end of Clause 1.

Sir J. Duncan: I am saying that the Committee discussing the English Bill, which, admittedly, started its business a little earlier than the Scottish Standing Committee, has now reached Clause 54, if not beyond. I am not contradicting what the hon. Gentleman has said; I am bringing him up to date. He is usually out-of-date.
The Committee discussing the English Bill has don its business on a voluntary timetable. Why could not the Scottish Standing Committee have agreed to a voluntary timetable? I do not like this Motion any more than anybody else. I would much rather have a voluntary timetable. If the English can work to one, why cannot the Scots? Had that been the case, we should not have had to waste a day discussing this Motion. We could have got on with business which is far more important, and also conducted the business in the Scottish Standing Committee in an orderly manner. I hope that this question will be answered by someone from the opposite benches.
It would have been much better if we had reached a voluntary agreement. Given the premise that the Second Read-

ing had been carried and the principle of the Bill accepted by a majority decision, and assuming that the Government must have the right to get the Bill passed into law within a reasonable time, why should there not have been a voluntary timetable instead of this enormous Motion on the Order Paper?
This is a rotten system, which we ought to deplore. If hon. Members opposite would only co-operate a little more with the Government and achieve a voluntary time-table we should obviate the necessity for a debate such as this and avoid the resulting waste of time.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) explained that he could not be present at the deliberations of the Scottish Standing Committee, because of the deliberations of the Committee discussing the Slaughterhouses Bill.

Sir J. Duncan: That is not so.

Mr. Hughes: But the hon. Member was a member of the Committee discussing the Slaughterhouses Bill which has been much more leisurely over its proceedings than has the Scottish Standing Committee. So far as I can gather, that Committee was very dilatory in its progress with the Slaugterhouses Bill.

Sir J. Duncan: The Committee stage is finished.

Mr. Hughes: It is finished now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us how many times the Committee met.

Sir J. Duncan: My hon. Friend has already told the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, and as I understand, a good deal of the time taken in discussing the Slaughterhouses Bill was occupied by the hon. Member for South Angus. He is the last person in the world who, not having been on the Scottish Standing Committee, should reproach us with conducting our business in an unbusiness-like manner.

Sir J. Duncan: I am more of a Scotsman than the hon. Member.

Mr. Hughes: I represent a Scottish constituency, and what is more, my constituents have returned me as their Member for many years; much longer than have the constituents of the hon. Gentle-


man. So that if he has any complaint of the fact that I am not a Scotsman, he must blame my constituents who happen to be Scottish people. The hon. Member once fought an English constituency—

Mr. T. Fraser: He was the Member for an English constituency.

Mr. Hughes: —and is the last person who should intervene in this debate.
The Lord Privy Seal tried to picture a serious Leader of the House who had carefully gone into every one of the reports of all the nine sittings of the Committee. I do not believe a word of it. The other day, the Lord Privy Seal told us frankly that the proceedings in this House were a struggle for power. This is an incident in the struggle for power.
This is a Government on the run who are afraid that they will not get their legislation through quickly enough. They are not using the Guillotine, which is a comparatively humane instrument; they are wielding an axe. This is striking right and left at the whole democratic procedure of the Scottish Standing Committee.
It would be a good thing if the Leader of the House spent a little time visiting the various Committees which he is supposed to superintend. He would find that in the Scottish Standing Committee most of the members are not present. He would find that in the next room there are hon. Gentlemen serving on what they call "quorum duty". I heard one of them discussing the reasons why he had been put on this Committee, and why he had to do "quorum duty." His duty was not to listen to the debate, but to turn up when a quorum was necessary in order to carry the Bill.
Why are some hon. Members put on this Committee to discuss what has been called this intricate piece of Scottish legislation? The only reason is there are certain hon. Members who have been chosen for punishment. Had the Conservatives won the Torrington by-election, I wonder whether the newly elected Conservative Member would have been put on the Scottish Standing Committee next week.
There is, for example, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who is a member of the Scottish Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman comes occasionally to the

sittings of the Committee and listens, in a stupified manner, to hon. Members opposite to find out what they are really talking about. Why is the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border a member of the Scottish Standing Committee? I tried to find out and at last I discovered the reason. The hon. Member is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. They did not have sufficient power to put the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on this Committee, so what did they do? They made a victim of the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary.
I wonder how many hon. Members representing English constituencies who have been co-opted on to this Committee understand the Goschen formula? They think that it is something to do with ancient Egypt. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) could pass an elementary intelligence test on the Goschen formula? I am certain that the majority of these hon. Members who, for disciplinary reasons, are being brought into the Committee, have not the slightest notion of what this legislation means so far as Scotland is concerned.
The Lord Privy Seal said that the Committee stage of this Bill would take as much time as an ordinary Finance Bill. There is only one Finance Bill, but the financial provisions in this Bill are meant to govern Scotland for the next quarter of a century. They are intended to govern Scotland for a decade ahead—that is, if there is a Conservative Government in office. It will be one of the difficult tasks of a Labour Government to unravel these provisions and to unscramble the egg. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they are legislating for the long-term financial provisions of local authorities in Scotland.
The Goschen formula, for example, goes back for many decades. Yet we are being asked to rush through a Bill which is causing much anxiety and concern to the local authorities. I could stand all the so-called arguments of the Leader of the House about the financial need for the Bill and about the Government needing to get their programme; but when the right hon. Gentleman explained that one of the reasons the Bill was needed was out of consideration for the local authorities, it was enough to make one sick.
The last people about whom the Government are concerned are the local authorities. The Government know quite well that the local authorities, the county councils, the town councils and the education authorities who are concerned with the Bill hate it, because they know that it is a dangerous Bill for the future of local government in Scotland. If the Motion before the House were dropped as a result of the appeal made by my hon. Friends today, nobody would be more pleased than those who have to do the hard day-to-day work of local authorities in Scotland and who are faced with intolerable financial difficulties, to which the Bill will inevitably add.
The Bill has been regarded so seriously by the Scotsman that it has devoted six long articles to it, and nearly every one of them has been critical of the Bill. Yet the Bill is to be rushed through just because the Government need to get their programme in the minimum amount of time.
The Leader of the House talked about our lingering over the Bill. My complaint of the debates so far in the Scottish Standing Committee is that we have not been able to linger enough. Take, for example, the debate on technical education. We have been told over and over again during the last three years about the importance to this country of technical education. There was one debate in which we were allowed to skirmish around the fringes of the need for local authorities in Scotland to have the necessary finance to deal with technical education.
We had a debate in which the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) argued that we needed to spend more money on technical education and on technical institutes because we were behind the Soviet Union and the United States of America in such education. I do not know where the hon. Member for Scotstoun is today. Perhaps he is already looking after the affairs of the company which he is to direct when he leaves the House of Commons.
I venture to support that argument. At one stage of the Bill I wanted to argue about the necessity of spending more money on technical education. In doing so, I referred in what I thought was an illustration, to what was being done in the U.S.S.R. I find, according to the

OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee, that I said—or half said:
I do not want this country to lag behind the Soviet Union. Moscow University is one of the most—
THE CHAIRMAN: The general argument which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward"—
I was not allowed to say what Moscow University was doing.
I am the last person to challenge the authority of the Chair, either in Committee or in the House, but I thought that the kind of education being provided by Moscow University was relevant because we were discussing finance for technical education. Then there were several points of order in which various of my hon. Friends came gallantly to my assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) both came to my assistance and argued with the Chair that I should be allowed to continue. In fact, they took up more time by their points of order than I would have done in developing my argument. I then had to beat a dignified retreat, and I went on to say:
My trouble is that you, Mr. MacPherson, are trying to cut my argument in advance before I have sought to explain it, but, if some are allergic to Moscow, may I turn to the University of Tiflis?
The Chairman intervened again. I mention these facts to show that, apart from any dilatory lingering in the Committee, the Chairman had been urging us on: The Chairman said:
The hon. Gentleman may not. The Bill is not concerned with technical education at that stage.
The Chairman said that despite the fact that previous speakers had argued in that way.
Although I regard the Chairman of the Scottish Standing Committee as Enemy No. 1, I do not think that the Government can so regard him because he has done his utmost to expedite the proceedings of the Committee.
At a later stage of the debate I had some satisfaction when I was able to give a little assistance to the Chairman. I was so anxious to see the business speeded up before 1st May that I took exception to a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn). My right hon.
Friend was not venturing as far as Moscow University or nearly as far as the University of Tiflis. He was giving an illustration about Eton College. I understand that Eton College is a technical school in England. I could not see why, if it was right to give an illustration from England, I was wrong in trying to give an illustration from Tiflis and Moscow. Therefore I rushed to the assistance of the Chairman.
I am not at all prejudiced against Eton. I am in favour of Eton and Slough, and I always support my hon. Friend who represents that constituency when he raises matters in the House. I have no ideological objections to Eton, and all I wanted on that occasion was to hurry forward the progress of the Bill. So I intervened on a point of order. I asked the Chairman:
Can you explain, Mr. MacPherson, why Eton is in order and Moscow is not?
The Chairman said:
I was wondering about that myself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 20th March, 1958; c. 319–22.]
I was helping the Chairman to hurry up the proceedings of the Committee which are supposed to be going at a snail's pace. I then had the satisfaction of knowing that, by implication, the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench was rebuked. Perhaps I may confine that warning—my warning—to the right hon. Gentleman.
I am sometimes suspected of obstructing legislation in the House. By whom, I do not know. I have been told that on a certain occasion I took up a whole sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee in opposing a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). It is quite true that on that occasion I made a rather lengthy speech. However, the Committee incorporated my Amendment in the Bill, and I had the satisfaction of being warmly thanked by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns for the assistance I had given him in getting the Bill passed.
I am using that as a complete reply to the Minister, who has argued that somebody was filibustering or that we were going at too slow a pace in order to delay the Bill. I gave this illustration to show that, as one of the chief culprits introducing perhaps the elaborate arguments that are necessary in order to improve

the Bill, I have tried my best to get this Bill hurried up, even to the extent of making a mortal enemy of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire, who had to sit down as the result of my trying to help the Chairman to carry out the business of the Committee.
I submit that there is no excuse for the accusation against the Opposition that they have been trying to delay this Bill unnecessarily. Every speech which I have heard during the course of the debates in the Committee has been a legitimate speech in order to help the Government to improve the Bill. I suggest that this Motion is not justified. Even from the point of view of handling the business, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been incompetent, because if at any time he had had his conscript quorum organised, he could have moved the Closure. He has done it once, and he could do it again. It is because I believe that, not only from the point of view of principle, but also from that of procedure, the Government have shown themselves to be incompetent that I hope that this Motion will be defeated tonight.

5.12 p.m.

Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: Whenever I follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in debate, I am always reminded of what James Boswell wrote about the then Member for Ayrshire in his London Journal in 1773. Boswell wrote:
I called on our Member and found him the same joker as formerly and nothing more. It struck me a little to think that the gentle, men of Ayrshire should be represented in Parliament by a good, honest, merry fellow indeed, but one so totally incapable of the business of legislation, and so devoid of the talents which distinguish a man in public life.
Poor Ayrshire in 1773, and now, in 1958.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this was the evidence of Boswell, who was by no means a very good witness?

Mr. Rankin: He was a disreputable character.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He was not a very reputable character.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Let us leave the past to the past. In all seriousness, I wish that the people of Scotland, and particularly those for whom the Scotsman newspaper has been writing lately, could


have listened to every word of the hon. Member's speech, so much of which requires debunking.
Many of these illustrations are entirely irrelevant to the real business of the work of this House, and entirely irrelevant to the real business of the Scottish Standing Committee. The hon. Member himself reminded us of the occasion when there was a small Bill in charge of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) on which he spoke, if I remember rightly, for the whole of a sitting of the Committee—and in order—but surely Scottish Members of Parliament do not need the whole of two and a half hours in which to develop their arguments?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has, in fact, contributed one sentence of any kind at any time during the whole course of the sittings of the Committee, either in support of the Bill or against it?

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I think it was the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) who said that—
Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter.
If hon. Members on the Government side are trying to help the Government to get their business through, the best thing that most of them can do is not to take up an undue amount of the time of the Committee. If I may go further with this argument, and I think it is a true argument—hon. Members on all sides know that this is not a vote-catching speech, because it will not be reported in the Press, and we can be quite realistic about it—I would say that silence is sometimes worth a great deal more.
If we are to have the proposed procedure, for which there is ample precedent, it may be an encouragement to hon. Members who support the Government—as well as hon. Members opposite, whose motive is to delay; I do not say obstruct—to take up points and have a share of the debate and, in that way, have the argument better put from both sides of the Committee as a result.
I do not want to waste time in this debate, because time and again, as hon. Members will remember, these questions have been debated in this House. The

point of view of each party is always dictated by the side of the House on which it happens to be sitting. Government supporters are on the side of the Motion proposing the timetable, and opponents of the Government, who want to delay Government legislation, always oppose it. Therefore, one knows from the word "go" how the debate will go.
I should like to put one particular point, in closing, on the matter of the first session, as it is, of the newly constituted Scottish Standing Committee. I am one of those who would have liked—and I am sure the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) would also have been pleased to see it—an agreed timetable, one agreed by the Scottish Members in the Scottish Standing Committee instead of one imposed on the Floor of the House. I think that that was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would have liked it, because a timetable is necessary in order to get through the business of this House, as we well know; but, as we failed to get that agreed timetable, it was incumbent on the Government to ensure that their policy was carried out. I support them in the action they have taken.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: We have had two contributions from the Government side of the House, and, of course, we welcome them. The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), who spoke earlier, opposed the Guillotine. I think it is not unfair to say that, at least, he made it clear that he was not supporting his Government on this occasion. The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) has revealed why the Government want their back benchers to keep quiet. It is because they are not helpful, and the best assistance they give to the Government is by keeping quiet.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: It is a question of time, and of trying to get the Bill through without delay. If Government supporters speak at great length, that always causes speeches from the other side, just as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) is ready to speak now that I have intervened.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman lands himself in a dilemma. Now that we are to have less time, the


hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he will speak more often. The more we compress the duration of these debates, the more talkative the hon. and gallant Gentleman will become, and the more unhappy the Government will become the oftener they hear the support they get from him.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, this is a unique occasion, because it is the first time in the history of the Scottish Standing Committee that the Guillotine has been imposed on our proceedings.
This proposal has come from a Secretary of State for Scotland who clings desperately to some of the traditions of Liberalism. Whether he is more of a Conservative or more of a Liberal is a matter of doubt. No inquiry has so far been held into that question. At least, the right hon. Gentleman hangs on to the word "Liberal" and it is he who brings in this restrictive Motion, which is in keeping with the Liberal tradition.
The very first Guillotine that was ever applied to any Scottish Bill was in 1908, by the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. He imposed it upon the Scottish Land Values Bill and on the Scottish Smallholders Bill. That Liberal tradition was begun fifty years ago and is being continued today. I hope that it will receive no more support than it formerly had from Government supporters.
I am sorry that the Leader of the House has now gone out. I wanted to quote to him what the Leader of the Tory Party said when the right hon. Henry Herbert Asquith brought in a Guillotine Motion for the Scottish Temperance Bill in 1913. The present Leader of the House of Commons always speaks with suavity. The words of Mr. Austen Chamberlain reminded me of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. They were:
… the more mellifluous the language in which he commends it to the House, the greater is the outrage which he proposes to perpetrate upon our ancient privileges and liberties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1913; Vol. 54, c. 824.]
That was the description given by the then Leader of the party to which the Secretary of State belongs when an earlier Guillotine Motion was introduced by the Liberals. I wonder whether the

Minister who is to reply to the debate is prepared to echo the words which were used in support of the Motion in 1913.
There is a feeling on this side of the House that the Leader of the House was not well-informed about the proceedings of the Scottish Standing Committee. He has been given the impression that we on this side of the House have been lingering unduly in our consideration of the Bill, and wasting time; and that, because we had wasted time, the Guillotine had to be imposed so that the Government could get their business through the House. The records of the Committee proceedings show that this is not true. In fact, we achieved a very important Amendment of the Bill.
Is it generally realised that when the Bill came before the Committee it showed that the Government proposed to restore the financial veto of the House of Lords? Because of an Amendment moved from our side of the Committee, the money order, as originally proposed in the Bill, will not now he submitted for the approval of the House of Lords. That was a most reactionary Government proposal and we had to argue on it for quite a while. Nobody in Parliament wants to restore the financial powers of the House of Lords, yet that was proposed in the Bill. It would be difficult to describe the time spent on that Amendment as in any way wasted.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) mentioned the time spent on technical education. We also spent a good deal of time on another Amendment to decide whether or not in every financial provision the words,
subject to the consent of the Treasury
should be used. That proposal was very properly resisted from our side of the Committee, and the Government put up no valid argument in favour of those words.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. J. N. Browne), speaking for his Front Bench, said that the phrase did not mean what it appeared to mean; it meant
the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury".
This includes the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the three Government Whips—altogether five right hon. and hon. Members. In order to test


the validity of that explanation I asked a week ago last Tuesday in this House how often the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had met to vote financial grants. The answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a Member of the Committee, was that they had not met for that purpose in 100 years. That is the sort of thing that we are up against. The only occasions on which they had met were ceremonial occasions. Perhaps the granting of money is such an effort to the Government that when Scotland gets it that is regarded as a ceremonial occasion.
The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian asked why we had not arrived at an agreed timetable. His argument was that if we had agreed upon a timetable we would not be getting the jackboot. I do not know a great deal about this talk of an agreement. One hears things by keeping one's ears open. I am not revealing any secret when I say that I believe there was talk about an agreement, but all my hon. and right hon. Friends opposed an agreement, for this reason.
The consideration of the English Bill started on 28th January, but consideration of the Scottish Bill did not start until 27th February, a month later. Up to last Thursday there had been nine sittings of the Scottish Committee and 24 sittings of the English Committee. Before we had had five sittings of the Scottish Committee—if I am wrong, I am subject to correction—the Secretary of State had moved the Closure in debate twice. Before we had had seven sittings he was looking for a voluntary timetable. In other words, we were pressurised from the very beginning. We were pressurised by repeated applications of the Closure and then by demands for an agreed timetable, and when we tried to preserve the democratic method in the Committee the Secretary of State immediately introduced the Guillotine.
There is no justification for that attitude. Perhaps it is in keeping with the Liberal tradition, as expressed by one at least of its modern exponents. It boils down to this: we on this side of the House are free to do as we like in debate, in the Secretary of State's opinion, as long as we do what he tells us. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has just said,

"That is it." That is what the Guillotine means. His views have slipped to the surface.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): indicated dissent.

Mr. Rankin: When he gets the least chance, out it comes.
The last time we had a Guillotine dealing with Scottish affairs was thirty years ago, in 1928. On that occasion the Bill was a United Kingdom Bill dealing with local government, just as the present Bill deals with local government, and the Guillotine Motion included not only England but also Scotland. Because both countries were concerned, one part of the Guillotine Motion was called the English Measure and the other part the Scottish Measure.
The Guillotine was then imposed by a party which had an adequate Parliamentary majority but which was losing more and more support in the country. That is exactly the position today. If the Conservative Party could tell us "We have support in the country", there might be some reason for their bringing forward the Guillotine, but they are in exactly the same position as were their predecessors thirty years ago. They have an adequate Parliamentary majority and they are not dependent on hon. Members on this side of the House, but their support is diminishing more and more rapidly in the country.
To apply the Guillotine in those circumstances is an unjustified curtailment not only of the elementary rights of this House but also of the elementary duties of a free Parliament. It is a brutal action carried out by a brutal method. It carries the stink of Fascism and not the flavour of democracy. In my view it shows the continual failure of this Parliament to deal with Scottish affairs.
Recently we denied to certain Scottish Members a customary right. We were to streamline the Scottish Standing Committee in order that it could deal more easily and more competently with Scottish affairs. For the purpose of expediting business, the rights of members of the Scottish Standing Committee were limited. Despite that, repeatedly during the procedure on the Bill the Government have failed to keep a quorum in the Committee.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They have not one now.

Mr. Rankin: No doubt one or two hon. Members will be coming into the Chamber in a minute.
The Government have failed in the purpose which they eulogised when they set out to reform this Committee. They are now taking a further step; they are going beyond limitation and are denying rights absolutely. They are denying the right of free and full criticism of one of the most important post-war Measures which we have had for Scotland. Despite the tinkering that has taken place over the last year in order to pep up the Scottish Committee; to make it more competent in the eyes of the Government, and to inject into it some of that expedition which they feel it should carry, the Government have failed and now they have to apply the Guillotine. If one were to say, "Hail Maclayski", that would be an adequate description of what has been happening in the proceedings of this House.
While I know that this is possibly a little beyond the scope of our discussion, I suggest that the reason for the imposition of this piece of Fascist legislation is the enormous pressure of ordinary Government business on the work of the Scottish Committee. No matter what we do by juggling with the membership of the Committee, we shall not solve the problem along the lines on which we are now seeking to solve it. It is as clear as daylight to me, and it is becoming gradually clearer to other hon. Members on both sides of the House, that if we are to get this problem into its proper perspective and to deal with it in an adequate manner, there must be a greater measure of devolution to a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh to deal with Scottish affairs.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the last suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), although obviously this is not the time to go into it in detail.
What shocked me in the debate was the argument, if one could so call it, of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray), who made his speech and then left the

Chamber, which is what he has been doing for several weeks past in Scottish Standing Committee. Today, he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I was very surprised that he should attack my hon. Friend of all hon. Members for a failure to understand what legislation means or how it should be conducted. If that hon. and gallant Member for Berwick is content to cite as his chief witness Boswell, the notorious gentleman who notoriously represented a very poor type of Scotsman indeed—the Scotsman who fell very much by the way or chose to fall by the way, and found his way into very dubious bypasses—I will not follow him into the fulzie and dirty alleyways of the eighteenth century.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) quoted from Boswell, who attacked the then hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I do not know what the then hon. Member for South Ayrshire was like, but I am certain that he did not pay £5 to a prostitute, get venereal disease and then ask for his money back.

Mr. MacMillan: That, at least, makes it pretty clear that the then hon. Member was not a member of the Labour Party. Boswell has been discredited, and we can dismiss him as a snivelling, lecherous, denaturalised sycophant, who did not belong to the Labour Party, but made his choice of friends among the many prominent Tory names of his times. Perhaps I may remind hon. Members of one authority in this House in past years, whose opinion of the legislative prowess of the Tory Party was much lower than that of Boswell or the non-Socialist Member for South Ayrshire in his time. It was Lord Randolph Churchill who said "The Conservative Party can increase taxation ad lib; it can govern and make war; but it is a schoolboy's dream to imagine that it can legislate." The hon. and gallant Gentleman is welcome to his schoolboy's dream.
The conduct of this Bill and the bring-in of this Motion is a gagging not only of the Opposition but, as is clear from the admissions of hon. Members opposite, of those who might have supported the Bill. This is the worst form of smothering democracy at work, in the only way we know of making it work—by debate in


this House and in Standing Committee. It is a sad day when one has to congratulate, not the Secretary of State this time, but the Lord Privy Seal upon what is, in fact, his maiden Closure on the Scottish Committee. It is not Madame Guillotine this time but Mademoiselle Guillotine. It is the first Guillotine Motion that has ever been attempted against a Scottish Committee, and it is no great credit to the Government that it should be on this particular Bill.
We have had more Government hon. Members present—and this is an illustration of how the Committee has worked throughout—on the issue of preventing discussion of the Bill than we have had in all the Sessions of the Scottish Standing Committee. I think that is something of which the Government's supporters should be a little ashamed. Throughout the Committee debates, they not only failed to praise—or to damn it—with any sort of vocal contributions, but failed to register any sort of interest in it at any point. Occasionally, they came in from the upstairs corridors. They came in, with their cups of coffee half consumed and their cigarettes stubbed out, immediately on the heels of the Secretary of State as he slithered in from time to times and coiled up in a corner awaiting his chance to move the Closure. All his contributions were the ten or eleven tinkling syllables, "I beg to move, That the Question be now put".
With the honourable exception of the Under-Secretary, the other side has not put up much support of the Bill. If the Government's case had depended on the Secretary of State, no case would have been made out at all. He has hardly defended his Bill, as he should, Clause by Clause, against any Amendment whatsoever. He has been a complete dummy in this piece—

Mr. Maclay: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, of course, the case for a Bill is normally deployed in the Second Reading debate. The Standing Committee deals with the details.

Mr. MacMillan: If I may correct the right hon. Gentleman, the case for the principle of the Bill is, of course, discussed on Second Reading; but the case for the Bill, Clause by Clause, subsection by subsection, paragraph and line is the job of the Scottish Standing Committee.

It is regrettable that the Secretary of State himself has shown no good cause why the Bill in detail should be supported by the House, or why this Motion, arising from his own failure to help to amend the Bill—which is largely the reason for the so-called delays—should be accepted.
Let me turn to what has been said about the time taken on Amendments. For myself, I think that every Amendment called has been of some value. Those that were not worth calling or were out of order were, of course, discarded by the Chair. Those that seemed repetitive, or likely to be, were grouped together by the Chair, and I do not think that anybody has for one moment called into question the conduct or the competence of the Chair. I had quite a large number of Amendments down and my name to others; some were taken, and some of them were not called. If putting them down is guilt, I plead guilty, but I had no complaint against the conduct of the Chair.
We had a fair time to talk upon the Amendments. From time to time, the Closure was put in the ordinary way by the Government and, when the Chairman thought it reasonable to accept it, it was accepted. We did not, however, anticipate that, having made a habitual use of the Closure—which, at the time, we rather resented but accepted—the right hon. Gentleman would go beyond that and move for the Guillotine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan has pointed out, this is the first time it has happened to a Scottish Committee.
Let us look for a minute at the things that have been under discussion and what remains to be discussed in the Amendments. First of all, let me remind the House, we have been operating with a smaller Committee. That was the first restriction, limitation and cut suffered by Scottish Members in discussion of Scottish Bills. A number of Members, some of them with a life-time's experience of local government, have been excluded, therefore, from the discussions altogether, and the result has been that the quality of the discussion has necessarily suffered.
There are extremely few hon. Members left who have any local government experience at all. We therefore lost numbers and experience. To that extent, the discussions suffered, and that may be another reason why hon. Members opposite lost a good deal of interest in the Bill.


That, however, made it all the more necessary for those of us who were left to carry out their duties, not to a less but to a good deal greater degree than we would have had to do had the old complete Scottish Committee been in operation. The result has been that it has been left to a smaller Committee to introduce the Amendments, and for a smaller number to talk more often on them.
Nevertheless, the Government having reduced the membership of the Committee, which thereby also suffered loss of quality as well as of rights, they were still unable to keep a quorum of their own Members. The poor Scottish Whip—who does his best, and does it effectively—was running about at what is called "minding his p's and q's." He was minding his p's by making sure that he had the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench and the P.P.S. handy. He had to mind his q's by first seeing that he had his quorum, and then keeping that quorum quiet. Generally he did his job perfectly well. But it is no failure of the Whips that has given rise to complaints about poor attendance. The Government must take the blame for them.
I turn, then, to the matters contained in the Amendments. The Amendment about the date of operation was far more important to the Scottish Bill than it was to the English Measure, because, in our arguments, it related directly to the effects of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act. Revaluation has already been carried out in England; but it will not have finished in Scotland for another two years. We therefore had to try to delay the operation of the Bill until that revaluation had taken place. That was one of the principal considerations in that one discussion.
Then there was the question of what we regarded as the unnecessary intervention and domination of the Treasury over the Secretary of State. We tried to prod him into claiming his own rights and sustaining the prestige of his office as the only representative of Scotland in the Cabinet. Eventually, he himself began to see the force of our argument and, at last, all the so-called wasted discussion bore some fruit. It is true that it was unexpected fruit; but there it was. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to agree that it might well be that the Treasury should not be quite so prominent in Ors sense. We then tried to urge

him along the rest of the way, but there we did not succeed.
Then we came to an Amendment about what we thought was the unnecessary intervention of members of another place in respect of what were predominantly money matters. The Secretary of State accepted that. I agree that that was only after a good deal of argument, but if the argument had not been put he himself would certainly not have introduced that Amendment; though it was rather important from the point of view of the House of Commons—that assertion of its rights of control over its most ancient function of Supply.
There were Amendments in respect of the rights and functions of district councils, and it cannot be denied that the discussions were worth while. Then we came to the question of the rights of areas with exceptional needs, and nobody can argue that that is not an extremely important subject. Certainly the areas with exceptional needs will never forgive the right hon. Gentleman for failing to accept our. Amendment.
Then we came to the Goschen formula; and nobody could argue that that has not been an important subject for discussion in the past and that it will not continue to be so for some years to come. Then there was technical education. Who would dismiss that as a trifle, except the Secretary of State for Scotland? There was also a number of other matters of equal or almost equal importance, and some of even greater importance. If they all fell by the wayside because of the stubbornness of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, that is not to say that the time was wasted or that the Amendments were not worth putting on the Notice Paper. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot sustain the argument that the debating time was wasted on all these vitally important matters?
I am afraid the trouble is that the Secretary of State has panicked. I think that word might be familiar to him. I think he is all nerves. Perhaps it arises out of the dull and crushing cares of his office. I can understand his cares being dull in view of the company they have to keep. Perhaps he is overburdened. Whatever the cause, he has lost his nerve.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the remaining Amendments on the


Paper, he will see that there are still several left on Clause 2, and I plead guilty to being one of their partisans. On Clause 3, however, there are only five Amendments altogether, two of which are his own. If he looks at Clause 4, he will find one Amendment, which seeks to leave out Clause 4, admittedly; but it is one which the Chair would have to put in any case in the ordinary course, even if it had not been on the Paper.
On Clause 5, there are three Amendments, plus the usual Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. On Clause 6, there is no Amendment at all. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 7, he will find two Amendments, one from this side of the House and one from his own side—a fairly even distribution—and a rather novel one in view of the gag which was applied, even before this Motion was moved today, to his hon. Friends who have been silenced by everything from loyalty to sheer ignorance.
On Clauses 8, 9 and 10, there is not a single Amendment. On Clause 11 there is one; and none again until we get to Clause 18, on which there is one Amendment, and that is fairly brief because part of the subject has been discussed already. Finally, on Clauses 19 and 20 there are no Amendments at all.
There then comes an interesting point. After a short new Clause in the names of some of my hon. Friends we come to the point where the Secretary of State becomes extremely prominent in "obstructing and delaying the Bill"—to use the language of the party opposite. When we reach the First Schedule we find the name of the Secretary of State. Similarly, on the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedules he constitutes practically the whole cast.
I do not think it can be said that we on these benches have overburdened the Notice Paper and unreasonably delayed the Committee with our Amendments. Certainly there are no frivolous Amendments. In any case, the Chairman would not have allowed them. Neither would he have allowed tedious repetition. I cannot understand the basis of all these complaints. If hon. Members opposite want constructively to help the course of their own legislation, they might at least take some time to speak and support it.

It is surely worth while for them to say what they think about their own legislation. But, even of the few Members on the benches opposite who have spoken, each has been partly critical of the Government. They have certainly praised the Bill with a paltry amount of enthusiasm.
As for the Secretary of State, he has made no attempt at all to justify his own Bill in Committee. Least of all has he any right to come to the House and incite the Lord Privy Seal, who has no knowledge of the Committee, to gag the Committee still further.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: When the Leader of the House this afternoon moved the Motion now before the House he confessed that the Bill which is being considered by the Scottish Standing Committee is of great importance and of considerable complexity. All hon. Members who are serving on that Committee will, I think, agree with those sentiments. We regard the Bill as one of considerable intricacy which vitally affects every local authority in Scotland.
The Bill involves a major alteration in the whole form and structure of Exchequer grants to local authorities. It abolishes the Education (Scotland) Fund and it proposes vital changes in the de-rating provisions of the 1929 Act. It also seeks to make permament the Secretary of State's control over borrowings by all local authorities in Scotland. Surely we should have reasonable opportunity to discuss a Bill of such complexity and which so vitally interests Scottish local authorities.
The Bill involves a sum of £36 million odd. I should have thought that the Leader of the House, when moving the Motion this afternoon, would have given us some concrete evidence of the way in which the progress on the Bill was being delayed. I should have thought that he would have given us chapter and verse by quoting some of the Amendments moved by my hon. Friends, but he made no effort to do so. He merely made the assertion in vague and general terms that the Committee had failed to make reasonable progress. He certainly did not accuse us on these benches of filibustering. Indeed, when the Leader of the House resumed his seat I thought the Secretary of State would naturally


move that, "The Question be now put." Fortunately, he did not fall into that error.
My hon. Friends have dealt very sensibly with what I prefer to call the incompetence of the Ministers responsible for handling the Bill. Several of my hon. Friends have indicated that the lack of progress on the Bill has been due entirely to the failure and incompetence of the Minister—incompetence that inevitably leads to delay. If the Leader of the House doubts the sincerity or accuracy of the assertions which we make with regard to Ministerial incompetence, I invite him to attend one or two sittings of the Scottish Standing Committee and see for himself where the delay takes place. I am quite satisfied, and I know that my hon. Friends will agree with me, that he will, after a single visit, come to the conclusion that there is no justification for accusing the Opposition, at least, of delaying tactics. He will realise that the whole responsibility rests upon his own colleagues in the Government for their failure competently to handle the various Amendments proposed.
I have so far failed to appreciate the real reasons behind the Motion or what has prompted it. I say that having in mind what occurred on the other Scottish Bills we have dealt with during the last two years. We all remember dealing with the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill, on which there were twenty-four sittings. Adequate time was given to us to propose r Amendments and to take part in the discussion on all Clauses of the Bill. The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Bill had twenty-two sittings. No attempt was made to introduce a Guillotine Motion or even to make a formal time-table arrangement. We had ample opportunity to discuss all the issues involved in that Bill. Last year, we had the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill, on which there were twenty, sittings of the Committee. One of the sittings, indeed, lasted for twenty-six hours; we went all through the night. Again, no suggestion was made that we on this side of the House were filibustering or delaying the progress of the Bill.
We have before us today a Bill which, I venture to suggest, is greater in complexity and far more intricate than any of the Bills I have so far mentioned. Yet, after only nine sittings in Committee,

without rhyme or reason, and without any evidence produced to show that there has been an attempt to delay progress, a Guillotine Motion is introduced. Not only has no evidence so far been produced, but I venture to suggest that the Secretary of State will himself make absolutely no effort to produce any evidence of filibustering or delaying tactics on the part of hon. Members of the Opposition. I make the prediction that he will not give us any concrete evidence of tactics of the kind which the Motion seems to imply.
Quite candidly, I suspect that the real reason prompting the Motion today is the intense dislike of most hon. Members opposite of having to sit in the Scottish Standing Committee. With the notable exceptions of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), hon. Gentlemen opposite, I suggest, intensely dislike sitting day after day, week after week, in the Scottish Standing Committee. I suppose that is not surprising because they sit there like stuffed objects in a glass case, making no contribution whatever to the debate. It is boredom to them. They have no desire to keep on attending meetings of the Committee like that. The Government, having gagged their own back benchers, now seek the opportunity to gag those hon. Members who are being creative and taking part in the discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) spoke of another reason for the Motion. From a local authority point of view, this is probably the most unpopular Bill which any Government have introduced in this century. It has raised among local authorities a hostility hitherto unknown throughout Scotland. Local authorities in Scotland—I regard Edinburgh not so much as a local authority, but as a local branch of the Conservative Association—are united in their opposition to the Measure in a way never known before. The Bill is unpopular not only among the local authorities, but among their associations, too. They came down here and presented a formidable deputation. They have pressed the Government to withdraw certain provisions of the Bill. Because of its unpopularity spreading from the local authorities even among the electors themselves, the Government want to stifle and sabotage legitimate discussion of it. This


is most unworthy. It is unworthy of the Leader of the House to come here this afternoon to move a Motion for which he knows in his heart of hearts there is absolutely no justification.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) is a little overgenerous to the majority of hon. Members opposite in thinking that one of their complaints about the Bill and one of the reasons for asking for the Motion is that they are bored by our proceedings upstairs. My hon. Friend knows only too well, surely, that hon. Gentlemen opposite are there far too little to be bored by the proceedings in Committee. At our last sitting, they were there so little that the Government could not even obtain a quorum to get their business through.
I except, as my hon. Friend did, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), though I had hoped that we might have had some sort of speech from one or other of them, preferably from both, during the discussion of this very important Motion. I was encouraged a few moments ago to see the Solicitor-General join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok on one of the back benches. I could not make up my mind whether he was there to dissuade the hon. Gentleman from speaking or to try to persuade him to speak. Perhaps the Solicitor-General had become so disgusted at the behaviour of the Government in regard to the Motion that he had decided to retire to the back benches.
This is the first occasion on which I have sought to address the House on a timetable Motion. I have been here only four or five years, but I think that I could have been in the House a very long time and never had the opportunity to speak on a timetable Motion in relation to a Scottish Bill, because the Government are today setting an important and really quite disgraceful precedent in introducing for the first time the Guillotine on a Scottish Bill. I am well aware that, when we come to discuss timetable Motions in the House, there are always ghosts from the past lurking about, that the heat which is engendered by a timetable Motion varies a great deal

according to the side of the House upon which one finds oneself at various times. I have tried to find some sort of principle upon which to approach timetable Motions introduced by a Government. I do not think I can do better than take as a teacher in these matters of constitutional principle the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), a former Prime Minister, who adumbrated the principles relating to timetable Motions in a debate in the House on 3rd March, 1947. The Secretary of State will remember very well the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was present and made a passionate speech against timetable Motions.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford said:
When you are dealing with matters of great principle where one side of the House thinks this and another side of the House thinks that—then we come to a clash where no kind of parley is possible, and it can only be settled by voting. But with Bills of this kind, … these Bills which affect vast numbers of people, and vast numbers of local authorities, and small and intricate interests that have grown up throughout the country—it surely would be an advantage to the Government to have these Measures a little shaped and a little fitted to the shoulders of the public who are to obey them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 83–4.]
I cannot hope to emulate the measured sentences of the right hon. Gentleman, but there is a great deal in his argument.
I do not agree with his argument in the particular context in which he was advancing it—in relation to Bills introduced by a Labour Government to nationalise transport and to nationalise land values. However, I accept his argument that there is a difference between Bills which raise great issues of Party principles on which there is no common ground, and Bills which do not necessarily produce great differences of doctrine between one side of the House and the other.
In the case of the Bills to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford was objecting, there were issues of party principle. Those were major Measures of policy put forward by my party when it was the Government, published in its election addresses and then introduced to Parliament as legislation. There was little common ground between the two sides of the House on that legislation and in those circumstances timetable Motions were fully justified.
However, this Bill exactly fits the definition of the right hon. Member for Woodford. This is a Bill which does not raise basic issues of party principle. It is not a distinctively Conservative Bill, as against a distinctively Socialist Bill. It is a Bill which affects
vast numbers of people, and vast numbers of local authorities, and small and intricate interests that have grown up throughout the country.
It is also a Bill in which
it surely would be an advantage to the Government to have these Measures a little shaped and a little fitted to the shoulders of the public who are to obey them.
It is on those grounds that I am against this timetable Motion.
Here we have a Bill which is not distinctively a party Measure as between the two sides of the House but a major Bill affecting every citizen of Scotland and every local authority in Scotland. It is an immensely complicated Bill, and the Committee work done on it, as hon. Members have found, has been of immense importance. We have already had ample evidence of that during the course of our discussions. We have had a great deal of evidence that even the Ministers themselves who have been piloting the Bill through Committee have not completely understood its complexities. We have had occasions when it has been only after prolonged discussion that the Minister has been adequately briefed by his advisers and able to give the final view of the Government.
We had a most astonishing situation in which I was involved in which there was a reference to a certain Section of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946. I went to the Library to obtain a copy of the Act to discover what this Section said so that we could decide whether the Government's proposals were wise. We discovered that there was no such Section in that Act. When we inquired a little further, we discovered that that provision was to be inserted in one of the Schedules to the Bill at a later stage, a stage which will now be subject to the Guillotine, and that then the Government had decided to change their minds after advice from the universities; and so that provision was removed and there was to be another Amendment. I do not expect that the House will have followed the intricacies of that, because it is too com-

plicated, but it is an indication of the immense complexities of the Bill and the need for careful consideration of its provisions in Committee.
Nor can the Government argue that our Committee proceedings have been protracted or useless. We have had a number of instances in which Amendments moved by the Opposition have been accepted, or where the Government have said that there was sufficient in them to merit their being given further consideration on Report. I even had the unusual experience of moving an Amendment and finding the Government turning it down, not because they disagreed with it, but because they thought that it did not go far enough. They told me that they intended to introduce an Amendment incorporating mine, but going a good deal further. It was an Amendment about a very important matter relating to a regular report to the people of Scotland about the Government's decision on the size of the general grant. If there had been a Guillotine at that stage, that might never have been discovered and remedied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (M. Rankin) introduced an Amendment which raised a very important constitutional principle about the rights of another place to interfere with the financial provisions of a Bill like this. The Government discovered that they had made a mistake, and readily admitted it, and said that they were willing to accept the Amendment. If there had been a Guillotine at that stage of the Bill, that important constitutional question might never have been unearthed and the mistake might have been allowed to go through, so that the Bill would have been all the worse as a consequence.
This is a Bill whose complexities are such that it is a civil servant's Bill. I doubt whether even the experts in St. Andrew's House fully appreciate all its complexities. Certainly the local government experts with whom I have talked, town clerks with immense experience in these matters, have confessed themselves baffled about how certain parts of some of the Schedules will operate, Schedules which in due course will be subject to the Guillotine when this timetable Motion comes into operation.
This Motion will mean that the Government are surrendering essential rights


of Parliament and the House of Commons, surrendering essential rights of the Legislature as against the Executive, because a Bill which is essentially an experts' Bill, essentially an administrators' Bill, will be pushed through by a Government majority without adequate consideration and scrutiny by the legislators on both sides of the House.
In view of the special nature of the Bill, it should not be subject to a Guillotine Motion. At our last sitting, we discovered that this Bill involves the surrender of one of the basic formulæ of Scottish Governmental finance—the surrender of the Goschen formula in relation to education, which covers nine-tenths of the expenditure involved in the Bill. This came out almost by accident. It was not readily apparent in a first reading of the Bill. If that Clause of the Bill had been subject to a timetable Motion last Thursday, is it likely that this factor would have come out? Is it likely that the Opposition would have been able to do their constitutional duty and expose to the people of Scotland that the Government are surrendering this basic principle which ensures a guaranteed amount of money being spent on Scottish education? It is extremely unlikely.
I think that this Guillotine Motion will certainly mean that many matters of great importance to every local authority and every citizen of Scotland will be put through unscrutinised and unknown—unknown even to the Government, because there are many things which come out from the Opposition side in these proceedings which are useful to the Government. The Government would have been well advised to have admitted this and to have allowed the Bill to go through without a timetable Motion being applied to it.
There is only one argument for applying a timetable Motion. It is that our English colleagues—I know nothing about this personally, but I take the Minister's word for it—have been able to reach a timetable agreement on their English Bill, which is quite different in many respects, and that we in Scotland ought to have done the same thing and apparently did not. Again, I know nothing about this personally. The Government have therefore introduced the Guillotine Motion, and they are using it to chop the Scottish discussion down

to the size of England's. That is the only argument which the Government have advanced for introducing this Motion.
The timing of the Guillotine Motion is particularly unfair. I heard rumours towards the end of last week that the Government had it in mind, and I do not think I shall be giving away any secrets if I say that I asked one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench whether he knew anything about it. At that time, it was not at all certain what the Government's intentions were. I think it is true to say that the first information we had that the Government definitely intended to introduce this Motion was when the announcement was made on the statement on Business on Thursday afternoon.
This meant that this immensely long and complicated timetable Motion did not appear on the Order Paper until Friday. There are many hon. Members with much more experience of these matters who can tackle these timetable motions easily, but I am not familiar with them, and it takes me some time to discover what they mean. Most Scottish Members, if they can, go to their constituencies on a Friday. This week-end the Party on this side of the House were holding an annual conference in Scotland, and many hon. Members were there. In introducing a timetable motion on Thursday and Friday without adequate notice and in bringing it into the House on Monday, the Government have not given hon. Members adequate time to deal with the matter. They are rushing us along behind the coat tails of England in order to fit us in to the English Minister's needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central said, the situation in Scotland is quite different from that in England. In Scotland we have this Bill as part of a general pattern of Government legislation dealing with a number of other matters, including a radical change in the rating system. It is well known that all the local authorities in Scotland, with perhaps the single exception of Edinburgh, have suggested that a reasonable Amendment would be that the operation of the Bill should be postponed until 1961 when the new valuation is introduced.
In these circumstances, it is scandalous and wrong for the Government to base their case on the statement that they must get the Bill through quickly in


order to have conversations with local authorities in Scotland. The position of the local authorities in Scotland is different from that in England. I do not know the case for applying a particular timetable in respect of the English Bill, but that case certainly does not apply to Scotland. The position is quite the reverse. There was ample time for the fullest possible consideration of the provisions of the Bill in the Scottish Committee without any Guillotine.
A few years ago we had the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill. It was a very long Bill, and I have no doubt that the Ministers found it a very heavy burden because of its length, but they did not apply the Guillotine. The Secretary of State's predecessor saw that Bill through without a Guillotine, and I think he would be the first to admit, however wryly, that the Opposition did a good Parliamentary job in amending the Bill. We are to be prevented from doing a similar job on this Bill.
Apparently, the only argument for the Government is that we should be cut to size to fit the English pattern, and the only hon. Member who has spoken from the Government back benches on this subject, the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir. J. Duncan), made that his sole point. He said that we should have co-operated with the Government and come to an arrangement with them. The hon. Member, who sits for a neighbouring constituency to my own, is well known in the House as being, at least on the other side of the House, a somewhat Coalition-minded Member. He is one of those odd Members whose position, like that of the Secretary of State, is a little incomprehensible to rather blunt political minds like ours. He is a Unionist and a Liberal or a Unionist and a National Liberal; I do not quite know which. As far as I could gather, he was suggesting that what we needed in the House was a whole lot of not merely Unionist and National Liberal Members but Members who would call themselves Unionists and National Liberal and Labour.
That is not the duty of the Opposition in the House as I see it. I think that the Opposition has done its constitutional duty in Committee on the Bill reasonably and well. It would have been in the interests of Scotland to have allowed it to go on doing that job freely without

cutting it short by means of the Guillotine. I think that the Government have made a major blunder here, because this is a Bill which, more than most Bills, has the whole-hearted opposition in principle of all the local authorities in Scotland. The Government here are therefore not guillotining simply the Opposition in Parliament but every single local authority in Scotland, and I think that they will live to regret this day.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: My contribution to the debate will be very short, because although this is a debating Chamber it is extremely difficult to debate when there is nobody with whom to debate. What the House has found this afternoon is an exact repetition of what has taken place upstairs. No hon. Member opposite has any contribution to make to this important Bill or to this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) said that the Government would use their majority to push the Guillotine Motion through the House, but it ought to be remembered that, as far as Scotland is concerned, the Government have not a majority to do so. They are in a minority in Scotland. We see come true the very old Scottish story, which you, Mr. Speaker, know very well, of the meeting of Scottish anarchists who debated a motion that the minority was always right and carried it by an overwhelming majority. That is the position which we are achieving here, because the majority of the people of Scotland do not want the Bill. The majority of the Scottish Members do not want the Bill, but the Government intend to insist on it being put through. We know that there are hon. Members on the Government back benches who detest the Bill and who, if they were free, would not only say so but would vote against the Bill.
My principal reason for rising is to protest against the way in which this matter has been dealt with. In Committee last Thursday we made very good progress. It should be said for the record that we disposed of five Amendments in the course of the sitting. At the beginning of Thursday's sitting the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he had one intimation to make on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of


State. It was an intimation that it was proposed after the Easter Recess to meet on Wednesdays. He said he thought he ought to intimate that to the Standing Committee, and his Motion was agreed to willingly. No objection was raised to it because we wanted to get on with the business.
When he was making that intimation the Joint Under-Secretary had not the courage also to intimate that his right hon. Friend proposed to move a Guillotine Motion which was to be laid before the House the same afternoon. It was not until two hours later, when the Leader of the House announced the Business for the next week, that this official intimation was given. I think that the hon. Member has been less than fair to Scottish Members.
Indeed, some of the delay has been due to the sheer incompetence of the Secretary of State in handling the Bill. He of all people in the House has no right to speak in support of the Guillotine Motion. His record in these debates is one of complete opposition on every possible occasion. Unlike his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray), who said that the duty of Government back benchers is not to delay the business of the House, on each successive occasion that the right hon. Gentleman has opposed Guillotine Motions he has argued that he did so because he felt that Government back benchers had an equal right with Opposition Members to take part in the business of the House. He has argued that on every conceivable occasion, and yet he has the audacity upon the second time within twelve months to support a Guillotine Motion. I remember how he criticised the Labour Government when they introduced three Guillotine Motions in six or seven years. The right hon. Gentleman has supported a Guillotine Motion twice in twelve months. Indeed, this is the seventh Guillotine Motion since the present Government came to power.
The right hon. Gentleman is today betraying the interests of Scotland. I do not blame the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House, by many speeches in Scotland, has taught us to understand that we cannot accept what the Leader of the House says. Scotland

does not forget that it was the Leader of the House who came to North Berwick and made his famous speech in which he said there would be no cut in the food subsidies until we had got prices down, and that all things would be safeguarded. We know he betrayed that pledge within a month—indeed, a week, as one of my hon. Friends reminds me—of coming to office. On this occasion it is not the Leader of the House but the Secretary of State who is betraying Scotland's interests, and Scotland will not forget.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I understand that the Secretary of State is likely to catch your eye next, Mr. Speaker, when he will proceed to justify the Motion. I think most hon. Gentlemen will agree that we find it difficult to understand how he of all people can possibly justify the Motion, for he has been so little at the Committee and knows little of what has gone on. He told us, on the occasions when he came, that he had given the utmost careful consideration to proposals made by the Opposition and by some of his own colleagues, but there has been no evidence of that either in his own contributions to the Committee or in those of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State. He comes to argue the Guillotine Motion on grounds which so far have not been disclosed to the Committee.
We on this side of the House have no objection on principle to timetables for Bills. If the Conservatives including the National Liberals—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not call himself that yet—behave, when they come back to Opposition, as badly as they did on previous occasions I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), or somebody in his place, will be obliged to insist on timetable Motions.
We all recognise that there is a limited number of days in a Session, and that when the Government introduce a Bill they will probably insist on getting it through, and that, if the Opposition at any time indulges in obstruction to prevent the Bill from going through, the Government have a moral right to ask for a timetable Motion to be imposed upon the Committee considering the Bill. Nobody is disputing that, but in this case the Secretary of State has not that moral


right, for there has been absolutely no obstruction by hon. Gentlemen on this side. If the right hon. Gentleman examines HANSARD he will find that if there has been delay in the Committee it has been due to the Government spokesmen and nobody else.
The Scots are a precise people. They object to bad grammar; they object to indifferent and vague phraseology. On occasion they have pointed out mistakes in Bills, and the Government ought to have been convinced in a couple of minutes that the drafting ought to be put right. When a Scotsman meets stubborn, almost contemptuous, resistance to common-sense proposals, that irritates and aggravates him, and he, therefore, persists in his argument to see that it penetrates the Government's mind eventually.
The right hon. Gentleman has not been very much in the Committee, and he has, evidently, left such instructions with his hon. Friend that his hon. Friend is terrified at accepting any Amendments to the drafting of the Bill. It is evident from the discussions we have had in the Committee that, generally, the reason for resisting drafting Amendments is that they will make the drafting of the Bill conflict with the drafting of the English Bill. We object to that argument. The right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to discuss with his Ministerial colleagues drafting changes in his Bill to differentiate it from the English Bill.
I know comparisons are odious, but I must say that our experience of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was that when he was convinced of a case he was prepared, on a very important matter, to go to his colleagues to make the Scottish Bill then being considered different from its English counterpart, and so give us a much better Bill.
It was the practice, until the present Secretary of State and his team came into office, for every Ministry, when they heard decent suggestions, to accept them. Every Ministry I have known did so. Every Ministry I have known were always prepared to consider Amendments to Bills. Whether the case for an Amendment was made out by the Opposition or by their own hon. Friends they were always prepared to take the matter back and reconsider it. The Home Secretary has twice recently faced debates in the House about refugees coming

to this country. The Home Secretary did not stubbornly resist proposals put to him. The right hon. Gentleman was convinced that the House has a certain amount of reason for pressing the matter, and he took it away to consider it.
Yet on the smallest trifles of drafting the Scottish Opposition has had no consideration at all from the Government. I have never seen, in all my experience of this House, a Government behave as this Government have behaved towards the Opposition in consideration of this Bill. When I was in office we should not have got our Bills through if we had not been reasonably willing to listen to suggestions from the other side. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to read the record and to disprove that statement if he can. He can take, for example, the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill, or the Representation of the People Bill, which I put through with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. He will find that the most fundamental alterations were made as a result of suggestions made by hon. Members in various parts of the Chamber.
It is not fair to make allegations without backing them. I will give one or two examples of the Government's behaviour on this Bill. There is a phrase in Clause 2 (1, b) which says that, in fixing the amount of the grants for any year, the Secretary of State must consider any probable fluctuation attributable
to circumstances prevailing in Scotland as a whole".
Those words would make it impossible for him to consider all sorts of conditions which might arise locally, in an industrial area or in an agricultural area. For instance, let us suppose that a technical engineering school were needed in an industrial area, or an agricultural school in a rural area. Because the circumstances in either did not prevail in Scotland as a whole the Secretary of State would, by those words, debar himself from taking action really required.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland explained very carefully to the Committee, in response to a challenge which I put to him, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that it made no difference at all to the Secretary of State's powers, and did not involve his considering English conditions at all. It might have been supposed that the Secretary of State would have


accepted that. Would one not have thought so? We had to go on arguing to try to get him to see reason.
We had the same experience in arguing about the phrase "economic conditions" in Clause 2 (1, c), which would prevent the Secretary of State from giving proper consideration to entirely reasonable needs.
The Goschen formula came up for consideration at the last Sitting. When the subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and I drove the point home, it was clear that the Government Front Bench did not understand the importance of what was proposed to be done in the Bill. The Opposition Amendment which was before the Committee proposed that Scotland should not receive less than was provided by the Goschen formula. That was a promise for which the Secretary of State had claimed great credit. He had actually stated in a White Paper that the Government would preserve that guarantee that Scotland in the matter of equalisation grants should receive not less than was provided by the formula. Therefore, the Goschen formula was considered to be very important when the White Paper was issued.
The Amendment proposed that in education grant, to which it had applied for a generation, Scotland should receive not less than was provided for in the Goschen formula, but because we asked for not less than the formula we were told that we should receive only what was provided by the formula. In other words, the sum provided by the Goschen formula was to be the maximum. The Secretary of State now appears to be indicating dissent, but that was the argument.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, he ought to read the record. We were told that we should receive only the maximum provided by the Goschen formula. Indeed, if my memory serves me, the right hon. Gentleman himself used that very phrase. We were told that if we asked for more than was provided by the formula we should have no guarantee at all.
Is there anything in logic that would satisfy a Scotsman in that rubbish? The guarantee, therefore, goes. I am not sure that the Secretary of State understands what he has done to Scotland by

failing to stand with his back to the wall when he is faced with demands for economies at Scotland's expense. Greater provision for education is needed in Scotland than in almost any country in the world if Scotland is to survive. A great deal of time was spent in trying to convince the right hon. Gentleman of something which he ought to have known all along. Time has been wasted through the Government insisting on what was patently nonsense.
The right hon. Gentleman should recall the proceedings on the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) deserves credit for trying to make that Bill intelligible even to lawyers. It was lucky for the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend was not in such good form in Committee on the Bill which we are now discussing. He was suffering a little from indisposition, otherwise he would have found just as many faults in this Bill and would have put them right for the right hon. Gentleman.
In any event, there can be no charge of filibustering against my hon. and right hon. Friends. The Secretary of State has pointed out in the past how necessary it was to have proper discussion and how every hon. Member should play his part in amending a Bill, but that can be done and the House of Commons can work only if the Secretary of State and Ministers are prepared to be receptive and to listen to what is being said. We have been convinced frequently that we were not being listened to and that what we were saying was not being understood. That might have been due to difficulty about the language or to a lack of clarity in our diction, but we were convinced that there was some other reason and that the fault was not ours.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) asked why we could not have had a voluntary timetable. The Secretary of State tried to get a voluntary timetable and he was willing to arrange one. My hon. Friends could not agree to it because they did not know how much time the Government Front Bench would waste by adopting the tactics which it has employed so far. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) delievered a most damning indictment today in his recital of what has happened. Many of


my hon. Friends have given chapter and verse for the delay caused by the Government Front Bench. If we agreed to a voluntary timetable we should be giving carte blanche to the Government Front Bench to be as resistant as it has been up to now.
The Opposition has a duty to examine everything that comes before the House of Commons and its Committees. It has a duty to test Government legislation and to examine whether it is for the benefit of the people. The Opposition is determined to perform that duty and not to be muzzled by any action such as the proposed Guillotine Motion. So far, there has been no justification for such a Motion. If the Government had been able to control their own Front Bench and their own thinking processes there would have been no difficulty in getting the Bill through in time.

Sir J. Duncan: My question was not quite what the right hon. Gentleman quoted. I said, "If the English can do it, why cannot the Scots?"

Mr. Woodburn: I understand that English Ministers have been reasonable and willing to discuss things with the Opposition. That is the whole difference, and that is the reason.

6.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): As he knows, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is someone for whom I have considerable respect. I always listen to him on the subject of his experience at the Scottish Office. But the right hon. Gentleman really has done himself very much less than justice in his fifteen-minute speech. I do not know whether he meant it, but he and, I think, some other hon. Members implied reproof because I was not more often at the Scottish Standing Committee. I assure hon. and right hon. Members that whenever I can be present at the Committee I am there. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire knows the weight of responsibility on the Secretary of State. He has the duty to cover the ground as well as he can, and there are occasions when it is simply impossible for him to fulfil his job on behalf of Scotland and be at Standing Committees all the time.

Mr. Woodburn: I made no complaint about the right hon. Gentleman not being at the Committee. I recognise that he has other duties, but when he delegates a job in Committee he ought to delegate discretion to accept reasonable Amendments.

Mr. Maclay: That is another point, and I was coming to that.
The right hon. Member knows something of the work which goes on in a great Government Department and of what is done when Amendments are discussed. In our discussions of the Bill and in my talks with the Joint Under-Secretaries about handling it, we obviously considered that some Amendments would break the principle of the Bill and we felt we could not accept them. We probably agreed on those, but beyond that there is complete flexibility to do what is reasonable in the light of discussion and of developments in the course of the proceedings.

Mr. T. Fraser: There is no evidence of it.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member forgets the third sitting of the Committee when the Government Front Bench accepted one Amendment and promised to consider two others.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman himself accepted that Amendment.

Mr. Maclay: I accepted one Amendment and the Joint Under-Secretary dealt with the others. The fact that the one Amendment was accepted had nothing to do with my presence. One Amendment had had to be considered carefully overnight, and that was the one which I happened to accept. It was pure chance that it was so. That is full confirmation of how wrong it is to say that we on the Government Front Bench do not consider what is put forward by the Opposition. In every case where we feel it possible—and it happens that there has been only one so far, but there are other Amendments to come—we have accepted an Amendment. We promised to consider others later on, and we are doing that. The whole trouble is that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire and some of his hon. Friends seem to think that it is the Government's duty to accept the arguments put to them by the Opposition.
As to the allegations of inefficiency on the part of the Joint Under-Secretaries, I cannot think of a team who are more competent, effective and argumentative—with me as well as with the Opposition.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that when one day we rose at 1 o'clock we were discussing an Amendment to leave out the words "prevailing in Scotland as a whole" and he promised me that he would consider carefully all that had been said and would let us know his decision on the Thursday morning. When we met on Thursday morning the Joint Under-Secretary promptly moved the Closure.

Mr. Maclay: I would like to deal with that point, because I am slightly at fault there myself. I had a talk with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) after the debate, and later I looked at the Amendment carefully. I told him that I hoped to be at the next meeting. That proved to be impossible, and I slipped up in not asking my hon. Friend, when he told the hon. Member for Hamilton that I could not be there, to give the reasons why the Amendment could not be accepted. The debate was taking a curious turn at that time. I read the report of it afterwards, and I understand his point of view. If there is any blame, I accept it, because it was a slip on my part.
May I finish what I was saying on the point of the apparent idea of the right hon. Gentleman that because there is a strong argument put forward by the Opposition we are necessarily obstinate and stupid and hidebound if we refuse to accept it. That obviously was what most of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was about.

Mr. Rankin: We are not arguing that. We take it for granted.

Mr. Maclay: Then I need not carry the point further. We must distinguish between the strength of arguments across the Floor of the House and the fact that because one feels something strongly and it is not accepted by the Government, it does not necessarily mean that the Government are cockeyed and wrong. The Government may very well be right. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very unlikely."] Also considerable play was made about the reasonable attitude of the Government in 1945–1950 and how often they

accepted Amendments and suggestions. I suggest humbly that it might have been due to some badly drafted Bills, which the Government of the day realised needed to be amended. I have a lot of statistics here, which I can produce if necessary. We were in Opposition during that period, and we were very reasonable in the way we pressed Amendments. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman got big Bills through quite quickly, but if he will cast his mind back and will look up the reports, he will find that we in opposition argued things that mattered. We did not feel that everyone must have his shot at argument. We offered effective opposition and, at the same time, enabled the right hon. Gentleman to get his big Bills through in a short time.

Mr. Woodburn: May I put one point on those words, "prevailing in Scotland as a whole"? The Solicitor-General agreed with us that they had a hampering effect but said that to leave them out would make no difference to the Bill. As it was agreed that our argument was a good one, the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider it. That, however, was one of the few things he agreed to consider. There were many things put forward which he did not consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has sometimes pointed out superfluous words in the Bill, which it is always desirable to eliminate. Yet the right hon. Gentleman will argue for nearly a whole day rather than consider them.

Mr. Maclay: That brings me to my next point. If a Minister believes that he will not be able to accept an Amendment at any stage, I feel it is wrong to say that he will take it back and consider it merely to get progress in a Committee. If the Minister knows that he has no hope of giving way, it is not right to try to buy peace in the Committee and perhaps store up trouble on Report or get a reputation for buying peace at any price. A much better conduct of business is to take back something on which one can give way and study it; but if one knows it is impossible to do so, it is wrong to buy peace by promising to reconsider the point.

Mr. Woodburn: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that he was not prepared to consider our arguments—that he had made up his mind.

Mr. Maclay: Not necessarily. One comes to a Committee knowing that there are certain basic principles to which one must adhere. There are others which, when one has heard the discussion, one worries over to see if there is any way of meeting the argument and accepting the Amendment. If one decides there is not, it is only proper not to mislead hon. Members by saying one will reconsider the matter.
I will give briefly one example of what went on between 1945 and 1950, when I claim that we in opposition were extremely constructive and reasonable in Committee. [Laughter.] I am talking of the Scottish Committee. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill consisted of 114 Clauses and eleven Schedules. Without a Guillotine Motion it went through in twenty-one sittings. There was sensible, quiet work by the Opposition in helping the Government, not attempting to spin the proceedings out indefinitely. I am not saying anything about obstruction—

Mr. Ross: In order to obstruct, Members have to be there.

Mr. Maclay: I was, often. To sum up my own feelings about Guillotines and timetables, none of us likes them. No one wants this one. The only pleasure this discussion gives me is that it has given me a chance to add to my collection of what I have been called. If Robert Burns had been a Member of the Scottish Standing Committee, he would never have had to bother about seeing ourselves as others see us. I have added to my collection today the following: "Gowk", "Gourock Gagger", "Huey Long" and "Maclaisky". This debate has probably been worth while to learn what people think of me, but I was under no illusions anyway.

I am definitely of the opinion that, if parliamentary work is to function smoothly and effectively, we must ensure that adequate time is given in Committee for balanced discussion of Bills. I might have spoken differently some years ago had I realised what goes wrong without a timetable, voluntary, if possible, otherwise this kind. Without a timetable we get bad discussions. The first two Clauses of the Bill are important, but so is Clause 5, also one of the Schedules. We are anxious to ensure that the Bill gets proper and balanced discussion. I am not a prophet, and in this I am speaking only for myself, but I hazard the guess that if we are to make the parliamentary system work and are to get proper discussion of important Bills, we shall sooner or later reach the stage when it is recognised on both sides of the House that, in addition to the normal timetable of the Parliamentary Session, there must be proper arrangements for balanced discussion.

I am sorry that we did not get that voluntarily on this occasion, but in these circumstances I believe it is in the best interests of the Bill that we should agree to this Motion, and that I confidently ask the House to do.

Mr. Woodburn: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he tell us the justification for this Guillotine Motion? He has said nothing about it.

Mr. Maclay: The justification for it is: I am convinced after eight or nine sittings that we shall not get a properly balanced discussion of the Bill unless we have this Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 241.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H.


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bryan, P.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bidgood, J. C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat(Tiverton)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bingham, R. M.
Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)


Arbuthnot, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Carr, Robert


Ashton, H.
Bishop, F. P.
Cary, Sir Robert


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Black, C. W.
Channon, Sir Henry


Atkins, H. E.
Body, R. F.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Boothby, Sir Robert
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Cole, Norman


Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hon. J. A.
Conant, Major Sir Roger


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Braine, B. R.
Cooper, A. E.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.




Cordeaux, Lt.-Col J. K.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, John (Test)
Peel, W. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Hurt, A. R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Dance, J. C. C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Powell, J. Enoch


Deedes, W. F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Profumo, J. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, J. E.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Duncan, Sir James
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Remnant, Hon. P.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Renton, D. L. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Keegan, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rippon, A. C. F.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robertson, Sir David


Errington, Sir Eric
Kershaw, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Erroll, F. J.
Kimball, M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, P. M.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Finlay, Graeme
Lagden, G. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, R. C.


Forrest, G.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leather, E. H. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe &amp; Lonsdale)
Leavey, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Freeth, Denzil
Leburn, W. G.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Gammans, Lady
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Speir, R. M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, w.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Glover, D,
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Storey, S.


Cower, H. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grant, W. (Woodside)
McAdden, S. J.
Summers, Sir Spenser


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Green, A.
McKibbin, Alan
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Teeling, W.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Temple, John M.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gurden, Harold
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mathew, R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hay, John
Mawby, R. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St M'lebone)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wall, Patrick


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Hesketh, R. F.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Webbe, Sir H.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Sir Codfrey (Farnham)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E.&amp;Chr'ch)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hope, Lord John
Nugent, C. R. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hornby, R. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Woollam, John Victor


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Horobin, Sir Ian
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Mr. Oakshott and



Osborne, C.
Mr. Brooman-White



Page, R. G.








NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hannan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Albu, A. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hastings, S.
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)
Healey, Denis
Parker, J.


Anderson, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parkin, B. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pearson, A.


Baird, J.
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Balfour, A.
Holt, A. F.
Pentland, N.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, Sir George
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Beswick, Frank
Hoy, J. H.
Probert, A. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, H. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reeves, J.


Bowden H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, William


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, H.


Boyd, T. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.pncs.S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Royle, C.


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Snow, J. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Ledger, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gollins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Cove, W. G
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, J. D,
Lindgren, C. S.
Stonehouse, John


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McCann, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, E.


Diamond, John
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Timmons, J


Dodds, N. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomney, F.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mahon, Simon
Usborne, H. C.


Dye, S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wade, D. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mayhew, C. P.
wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
West, D. G.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Messer, Sir F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Finch, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Fletcher, Erie
Monslow, W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Foot, D. M.
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Moss, R.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gooch, E. G.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Winterbottom, Richard


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Woof, R. E.


Grey, C. F.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Owen, W. J.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Short


Grimond, J.
Padley, W. E.



Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T.



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill amends the 1944 Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. It arises from the Piercy Committee on the Rehabilitation Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons, which was appointed in 1953 and reported in 1956. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the few recommendations of the Committee which are concerned with employment and which also require legislation for their implementation.
It is quite a small Bill. In a sense it is a minor Bill, but that should be a cause for satisfaction and congratulation, and not for any other emotion. The reason it is a small Bill is that the Piercy Committee, having exhaustively examined the whole field of our services for the disabled, came to the conclusion that the statutory framework was basically satisfactory and needed little, if any, amendment. To use its own words, the Committee's recommendations centre upon a more effective use of the services, and their interweaving, so that full advantage can be taken of them. In the sphere of employment for the disabled the Committee recorded its view that the existing services are comprehensive and well established, needing little change or development.
Although it is a small Bill we should regard it as another welcome landmark in our progress in the service of disabled people. That is a service in which, as we have developed it, we can justly take pride. The Bill is a further step in following up the tradition that we have established that the best service that we can render disabled people is to find them work—not to give them other help, but to enable them to participate in the full life of the community and earn their own living by means of their own resources and their self-reliance.
I want to explain as briefly as I can the main contents of the Bill. Clause 1 is

concerned with industrial rehabilitation and vocational training. It changes the minimum age at which boys and girls can become eligible for rehabilitation and training courses. At present the age laid down is sixteen, and there is therefore a gap between the normal school leaving age of boys and girls and the age at which they can be given these courses. The Clause amends Sections 2 and 3 of the 1944 Act, which lay down the age of sixteen, and substitutes for it the school leaving age. If the Bill becomes an Act the benefit of training and rehabilitation courses will be available for boys and girls immediately upon leaving school.
We do not expect that this will take in many people at the moment, but even if there are not very many the ability to provide these courses immediately upon leaving school will be a valuable help. I am sure that the House will agree that the Clause serves a useful purpose in providing this service.
Clause 2 deals with the registration of disabled persons and makes two small changes in the present scheme. Under the 1944 Act the disability must be expected to last for at least six months if the person is to be eligible for registration. The Piercy Committee thought that that was too short a period and that someone who was disabled for only six months did not really suffer a sufficiently substantial handicap to justify registration. It suggested that the minimum period should be raised from six months to one year. Subsection (1) amends Section 7 of the 1944 Act accordingly. If the Bill becomes law it will be necessary for the disablement of a man or woman to be expected to last for a minimum of twelve months before he or she qualifies for registration.
We cannot say how many people will be affected by the Bill. All we know is that at the moment a doctor merely says, "This disablement will last for more than six months" and does not have to specify any period. From inquiries we have made we do not believe that many people will be affected, and in any case we agree with the Piercy Committee that this is a right change to make. Under this clause the new minimum period of expected disability will become the same as the minimum period for which registration can last, and to that extent it will be more logical and tidy than the present arrangement.
The second change dealt with in subsection (2) is another minor one, which clears up an existing anomaly. A characteristic feature of our system of registration is that it is voluntary; no disabled person can be compelled to register. At the moment the rather extraordinary position exists, however, that, while the act of registration is voluntary, once a person is on the register he cannot voluntarily withdraw himself from it. We see no reason for that; nor did the Committee. We think that this anomaly should be cleared away, and the subsection accordingly makes it possible for a person to have his name removed from the register upon his or her written request.
Clause 3 contains the main provisions, and has to be read in conjunction with the Schedule. I am afraid that the Clause, and especially the Schedule, must appear to the House to be extremely complicated. The object is quite simple. The length and intricacy of the wording may make it appear as if we wanted to move mountains, but in fact all that we want to move are the relevant powers and duties of local authorities, from the Statutes under which they are held at present to the Bill, thereby placing them under the formal supervision of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour instead of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Clause 3 and the Schedule make no material change in the nature or extent of the powers and duties which are now in the hands of local authorities. I am assured that this simple operation could not have been carried out in any less complicated manner, although I wish that it could have been, for the sake of the House—and, indeed, for my own sake in trying to explain the ramifications of the Clause and the accompanying Schedule.
The best way to explain the Clause is to remind the House of the powers and duties of local authorities that we are transferring from the jurisdiction of the two present Departments to that of the Ministry of Labour. These powers and duties fall into two categories. The first are contained in the welfare provisions of the National Assistance Act, 1948, under which local authorities have permissive powers to provide for the welfare of all categories of severely disabled persons.
In this sense "welfare" can include the provision of sheltered employment. So

far these permissive powers have been little used in connection with sheltered employment. In respect of one important category of disabled people—namely, the blind—the powers of which I have spoken are not permissive, they are obligatory by virtue of directions given to the local authorities by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland under the National Assistance Act. The arrangements made by local authorities in the fulfilment of their duties to provide for the welfare of the blind include provision of sheltered employment in workshops for the blind.
The second category of local authorities' powers falls under the after-care provisions of the National Health Service Acts. Under these, local health authorities have a general duty to provide for the after-care of the tuberculous. As part of this provision, a few local authorities in England have established sheltered workshops for tuberculous disabled, although there is no statutory obligation upon them to do so. Those are the categories, powers and duties of local authorities which we are transferring from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office to that of the Minister of Labour and National Service by this Bill.
When reviewing the present arrangements the Piercy Committee emphasised the need to draw a clear distinction between those disabled who are capable of some form of remunerative employment and those who are not capable of gainful employment. The Committee recommended that the power of local authorities to provide sheltered employment for the former class—whether in workshops or in the home, whether for the blind or the sighted—should be separated from their welfare and after-care powers.
The Committee recommended that these sheltered employment powers should be transferred to the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act and exercised in future under the statutory guidance of the Minister of Labour and National Service. The Committee also recommended that the provision of sheltered employment for the blind should continue to be the duty of local authorities but that in future these powers also should be given to them under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. That is what is done in effect by paragraph 3 and the Schedule.
Bearing in mind the clear distinction to which I referred a moment ago, the Piercy Committee recommended that those who are so severely disabled as to be out of the employment field and capable only of diversionary work should continue to be dealt with, as at present under the welfare provisions of the National Assistance Act and the National Health Service Acts. Therefore, in transferring the sheltered employment powers, as we are doing in this Bill, we had, as it were, to disentangle them from the general welfare powers as they at present exist. This new separation of statutory responsibility for welfare and sheltered employment is one of the reasons why Clause 3 and the Schedule are so long and complicated. I thought that the House was entitled to some explanation of this length and complication of wording to achieve a relatively simple purpose.
Having tried to explain the background, I should like to outline the way in which Clause 3 and the Schedule achieve this object. Subsection (1) gives all local authorities power to provide sheltered employment and training for severely disabled people—the Section II cases as we know them—registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. It also gives my right hon. Friend the power of direction similar to that which the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland now have under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act.
Subsection (2) cancels the existing powers of local authorities under the National Assistance and the National Health Service Acts so far as they are replaced by the new powers given them under subsection (1). Subsection (3) gives the Minister of Labour responsibility for the general guidance of local authorities in the exercise of these powers and requires local authorities to exercise them in accordance with the statutory schemes in the same way as they have to do now under the National Assistance Act.
Subsection (4) applies and adapts for the purposes of this Bill a number of provisions in the National Assistance Act, details of which are set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule. Subsection (4) must definitely be read in conjunction with the first two paragraphs of the

Schedule. Here the object is to secure that when the powers to provide sheltered employment have been transferred, they will still be subject to the same regulation as before in matters such as the statutory procedure for the submission and approval of schemes; the making of regulations by the Minister and the exercise of default powers by the Minister if any local authority fails to discharge its functions.
Subsection (6) provides for the whole of Clause 3 to come into force on 1st January next year, thus allowing time for discussion with the local authorities concerned and for other administrative arrangements which have to be made before the provisions of the Clause can be implemented. It was obviously necessary in the carrying out of this transfer of powers to preserve the validity of existing schemes of local authorities approved under the existing law, and also to ensure, in accordance with the recommendations of the Piercy Committee, that the duty of providing sheltered employment for the blind should continue to rest with the local authorities. These and other transitional provisions are provided for in paragraph 3 of the Schedule.
I hope that I have given the House some idea of the scope and purpose of Clause 3 and the Schedule and shown where they are inter-related.
There is one point about the effect of the provisions of Clause 3 to which I wish to refer; and that is the financial effect on local authorities. I wish to make clear that with one exception, which I will mention, the provisions do not affect the present arrangements for the payment of grants to local authorities which are providing these services. The reason is that the Ministry of Labour and National Service already provides financial assistance for these services under the 1944 Act, and will continue to do so on the same basis in the future.
The one exception concerns the small number of workshops for the tuberculous disabled provided by a few local authorities in England under the National Health Service Acts. Here the position is a little complicated. Under the present arrangements, approved costs of training facilities in these workshops are already met by a grant from the Minister of Labour and National Service. Employment facilities in these workshops however are grant-


aided by the Ministry of Health under the National Health Service Acts. In future, when this Bill is on the Statute Book, it will be the Ministry of Labour and National Service which will give grant aid for the employment as well as for the training facilities. We propose to give this aid on the same basis as that which we already use for other types of sheltered workshops.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the basis to be used for giving aid for employment facilities of sheltered workshops for the tuberculous is different from that used under the National Health Service Acts as at present operated for these workshops. This different basis may make some difference to the size of the grants. Until we have gone into the position in more detail than has been possible at the moment, I cannot attempt to forecast what this effect may be, but I wanted to draw attention to that point.
I hope that what I have said has proved a reasonably clear exposition of the purpose and contents of the Bill. If, as I expect they will, other points arise with which I have not dealt, perhaps I may ask for the leave of the House to reply to them shortly at the end of the debate. I thought it would be more convenient for the House if I did that and kept my remarks in moving the Second Reading mainly to the exposition of what is in the Bill.
May I conclude by repeating that this is a modest Bill, but this modesty is, I think, while not a ground for complacency, nevertheless a cause for some satisfaction in that it shows the completeness of our employment services for the disabled. It is also a tribute to those who laid the foundations of those services, particularly the late George Tomlinson. I think that all of us who are concerned in this matter could wish for nothing better than that one day we might achieve the name and reputation for helping the disabled which George Tomlinson achieved.
If this Bill concentrates only on streamlining the machinery and concentrating the authority in one place rather than on introducing any dramatic new policies, it will, I believe, make that machinery more efficient and so enable us over the years in a small but significant way to put still more power behind our

effort to help the disabled. That is our purpose in bringing the Bill forward and it is with that purpose that I have moved its Second Reading.

Sir Frederick Messer: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? I listened carefully to what he said, and if he answers this question it will probably avoid the necessity of my having to speak in the debate. The disabled person who is able to go into the sheltered workshops will be registered in future under the Ministry of Labour. Other disabled persons will be registered under the welfare scheme of the local authority, doing diversionary work. If such a person becomes proficient or well enough to go into a sheltered workshop, how will the transfer be effected?

Mr. Carr: I feel certain that one of the values of local authority work is that local authorities can link welfare with employment and therefore can bring people from the stage at which they are not up to Section II standard, up to that standard. I am sure that there is nothing in the Bill to stop that transfer and, if I have the opportunity to reply later to points which are made in the debate. I will deal with the point about the machinery. I will make inquiries about the machinery, but I am sorry that I have not the answer ready at the moment. I will try to deal with the point in detail.

Sir F. Messer: They cannot become deregistered without application by them.

Mr. Carr: I see the point.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman or the Ministry had any conversations or discussions with the local authorities, particularly with respect to Clause 3?

Mr. Carr: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. No doubt failing to mention it was an omission of mine in moving the Second Reading. Before we accepted the Piercy recommendations and before we drafted the Bill we had very close consultations with the local authorities.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I am expressing the feeling of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say how grateful we are for the very warm tribute which


the Parliamentary Secretary paid to a very beloved Member of this party who did such a great deal to bring forward the claims of the disabled. During the Parliamentary Secretary's speech the name of George Tomlinson constantly crossed one's mind, carrying one back to the time when he and the late Ernest Bevin did such wonderful work in what I call spreading the bounds of manpower during the war, when they discovered the high potentialities of disabled persons and made their employment and, indeed, their betterment much more effective.
If one were to follow the very pleasant tone of the Parliamentary Secretary, especially his opening sentences, one would have to sing a panegyric on the achievements of this country in the welfare of the disabled and other social fields. This might well be so. I yield to no one in my admiration of the work which has been done in this country and in our efforts on behalf of disabled persons. Having spent a lifetime in that work, I know very well the great advances which have been made during the last half-century. But I am sure that if we on this side of the House did that we should be led into a spirit of complacency which would serve the purpose neither of the debate nor of the Bill.
It would be idle of me to deny that we give only the most perfunctory welcome to the Bill. In the Gracious Speech of Her Majesty in opening Parliament on 5th November, we read:
A Rill will be introduced to improve the arrangements for the industrial rehabilitation, training and resettlement of disabled persons.
I, for one, read that sentence with a great deal of pleasure, anticipation and hope. We naturally hoped that the Government would put into effect the main recommendations of the Piercy Committee. May I remind the House that the Piercy Committee was set up at the instance of both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health as long ago as 1953. It reported in November, 1956. One would have thought that by now a comprehensive Bill dealing with the main recommendations of the Piercy Committee would be before us, but even now one cannot discover the Government's attitude to these recommendations, except for the rather complacent acceptance by the Government that all is well. Many of us think that all is not as well as it ought to be

or as it could be. I hope that in time we shall be able to find out what is in the back of the Government's mind.
The Government have initiated no debate on the recommendations since the publication of the Piercy Committee's Report. We have not even debated an innocuous Motion asking us to take note of the Report. All we have had is a short discussion on the Adjournment Motion, opened in a very sympathetic manner, which we all appreciated very much, by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in June of last year, and a debate last December on a Private Member's Motion. The latter was a most fortuitous circumstance. It happened that I was able to move that Motion because I won the Ballot. It was the first time in my life I had ever won anything. It gave us the opportunity to discuss the implications of the Piercy Committee's proposals and the Government's proposals in respect of the welfare, rehabilitation and resettlement of disabled persons.
The Minister was good enough to remain in the Chamber throughout that debate. It was a long debate, which opened at 11 a.m. and continued until the Adjournment. It evoked a great deal of interest. One would have thought that the fact that the Minister was here and that the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister of Health was also here—and we are glad to see him again this evening—showed that in the House there was a tremendous interest in our disabled friends.
I am not saying that those debates were not valuable. I think they were valuable, but they did not disclose what was in the Government's mind or what were the Government's intentions in this wide field. I think that, five years after the setting up of the Piercy Committee, we should have been able to introduce a much more comprehensive Measure which would not only have consolidated these little tag ends which have been lying about for a long time—and I am all for tying up loose ends—but would have enabled us to debate the whole of the implications of the problems of the disabled.
There are those people who get hardly any real, direct services—not only rehabilitation, but resettlement services. In spite of the 1956 recommendations of the Piercy Committee, and those of the


voluntary welfare societies, the local authorities and the Ministry's own advisory committees, all we get is this tidying-up Bill, dealing only with a few administrative problems, though those are, nevertheless, all the better for clarification.
We have a Bill of three Clauses and a Schedule. The Ministerial mountain has truly laboured and brought forth a little mouse—a three-legged one, with a long tail. We are entitled to know what are the Government's intentions. The local authorities want to know, and so do the hospital services and the voluntary societies. We want a Bill based on the whole purview taken by the Piercy Committee, and something that will remain the glory, as other Measures on the Statute Book have proved to be, of our welfare services.
I deplore the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken for granted that conclusion of the Piercy Committee which, in effect, said, "All is well. All you need do now is to put a few odd phrases in the Statute—make these amendments." The Committee's recommendations are wide-ranging, and although one would not expect the Government to accept them all—I differ from many of them myself—they do form the basis of valuable development and reform. One has only to read through the chapter headings of the Report to see how much can be done, and how much further we can go.
Some of the recommendations will need legislative action, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We should like to see definite plans for the extension of these services, with mandatory powers given to local authorities—

Sir Keith Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene, when he comes to the end of his sentence?

Mr. Edwards: Well, I. do not know that I ever do come to the end of my sentence. I think my Celtic blood makes me go on and on, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman straight away.

Sir K. Joseph: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that he and I think very much alike on this, but can he tell me what recommendations need legislation? I do not know of any.

Mr. Edwards: Well, if they do not need direct legislation they want much more ample administrative provisions.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes.

Mr. Edwards: And that can only be done through legislative action. If it requires statutory implementation, let us have the Statute, but why, so long after the National Assistance Act of 1948, are most of the welfare Sections still only permissive? It is due, I suppose, to the fact that the local authorities will not do this work unless they get the money, and unless there are grants for these welfare services we cannot compel local authorities to undertake these obligations. That is one matter to which the Government should address themselves at once.
Recommendation 12 of the Piercy Committee stresses that as strongly as it is possible for anybody to stress anything. It says:
It therefore recommends that local authorities should be grant aided by the Exchequer in their expenditure on services provided by them under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act. Any such grant should be available without distinction between the type of disabled person or of services concerned, but the rate of grant would need to be calculated having regard to the extent to which services have already been provided in some fields.
It is a sad fact that, today, 30 per cent. of the local authorities have not submitted schemes under the National Assistance Act, and part of the scheme in that Act is to be taken over by this new Bill.
This is not the time to make anything like an exhaustive examination of the omissions from the Bill. We can only hope for something much more tangible later one. I should have liked to have seen a tightening up on quota regulations. We need something much more drastic. During our debate last December we found, to our horror, that one of the great national boards was employing less than the 3 per cent. quota, Clause 2 might do something in that respect, because it makes registration available only to those whose disability is likely to last for twelve Months. That will bring matters more into line with the statutory definition of the disabled contained in the National Assistance Act—"permanently and substantially disabled."
I do not say that employers would do it intentionally; but they have the excuse


at present to take on a man with a slight disablement, who will be a very much more effective worker, perhaps, than one more seriously disabled. If the man can get rid of his disability in six months, there is the danger that his employer will still regard him as being on the quota. I think it a very good thing to extend registration only to those whose disability is likely to last for twelve months. There is a great deal more that could be done in the setting up of the industrial rehabilitation unit, and there is also the question of the disablement resettlement officers.
Clause 1 is quite valuable. It gets rid of the gap between school-leaving age and eligibility of the disabled lad or girl to go in for vocational and industrial training. That step is a very serious one in any young person's life. It is difficult enough for a lad with all his faculties, and brimming over with enthusiasm and health to take the big step from school into employment. It is very much more so for a disabled lad or girl. That gap of a year between school-leaving age and eligibility for the scheme can cause a good deal of frustration, and, indeed, apathy. It is quite possible for a boy, hanging about waiting to be absorbed into one of the units for training, to lose all hope and desire to better himself and to sit down, as it were, under his disability.
Turning to Clause 2, we agree that there is reason in the argument of the Piercy Committee, and I am glad that the Government have agreed with that recommendation as is shown by Clause 2. This has been discussed very fully and sympathetically, I think, in paragraph 161 of the Report, and one wonders why the Government did not follow this up by accepting the Committee's suggestion to extend the maximum registration period to more than five years. If a man has lost an arm, or has had a leg taken off, or is blind, there is not much possibility of his getting better in five, twenty or a hundred years' time.
I know that one of the answers is that it keeps the man on the live register all the time, and that, otherwise, the statistics might get distorted. However, that is only a minor point, after all. The permission given to a man to remove his name is sensible. A man whose name is

on the register may feel that he would like it to be taken off. Perhaps he could get a better job, or the fact that he is on the register may be a hindrance to his marriage prospects. I dare say that a good many girls would turn up their noses at a fellow whose name is on the disabled register.

Sir F. Messer: They would worth having, anyway.

Mr. Evans: What we must do is to ensure that the quota system is not abused by keeping persons on the register within the quota and at the same time keeping them in full employment.
Clause 3, as the Parliamentary Secretary has explained lucidly, is the important Clause in this very small compendium of Clauses. I think it is a good one. I can well remember, when we discussed the welfare Clauses of the National Assistance Bill, that there was this chance of the duality of responsibility and, indeed, of function between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour and National Service with respect to the sheltered workshop.
There is some doubt in my mind how far Clause 3 (1) of this Bill makes the provision of sheltered workshops by a local authority mandatory. At present I imagine that the welfare provisions are permissive, except with regard to blind persons, of course. I should like them to be mandatory. Perhaps the Minister will explain and clarify the position.
We know that this Clause is the result of recommendations 27 and 28 of the Piercy Committee. There follows, particularly in the synopsis of the recommendations, a warning about augmentation, and I hope that under the new régime there will not be too rigid a test or standard of attainment before men are accepted into sheltered workshops. It is of the highest value to a man, whatever his earning capacity, that he shall be able to work with his friends and be able to earn money. There is nothing more stimulating. It has a high therapeutic and psychological value, and I am afraid that the recommendations of the Piercy Committee in this respect go much further than is necessary.
We know very well that people do not like paying money in augmentation, and I do not suppose that the disabled person likes to feel that he cannot earn as much


as anybody else. But if we are putting these men back, taking them out of sheltered workshops and putting them into the lower or easier form of manual work, such as making fancy articles and things which are not factory-produced, we are lowering their morale and their desire to do better things.
I repeat that we on this side of the House would like an opportunity to have a full-scale debate on all the recommendations of the Piercy Committee. I am sure that as a result of such a debate the Government would find a great deal more that they could do in this field. For what this Bill is worth, we on this side of the House wish it well.

7.45 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: My first note was to thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) for having initiated the debate in this House last December, and I do so in spite of the very ungenerous and, to some extent, inaccurate speech which he has made today. I still feel that we are indebted to him for having raised this subject and given us the opportunity of a five-hour debate last December following the previous debate in the same year. When we count the two or three hours of this debate, Parliament will within twelve months have given a good deal of time to this subject.
For the hon. Member to say that the Government should have allowed a day for a debate on this subject is out of proportion and is an uncalled for criticism. I do not believe there is any substance in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that were Parliament to debate this matter for another eight hours, all kinds of things would appear from the Piercy Report or from the minds of hon. Members which would suggest deeper or better legislation than the present. That is simply not the case.

Mr. Edward Evans: I did not suggest that there should be a full day's debate. I suggested that the Government should give us some time to discuss all the implications of the Piercy Committee's Report. One could discuss the Piercy Committee's Report for a long time and it would have a very educative effect on the general public as well.

Sir I. Fraser: I will confine myself to my original intention to thank the hon.
Member for Lowestoft for having initiated the debate last December which lasted five hours and which gave us such a fine opportunity to discuss the admirable recommendations of the Piercy Report.
There are all sorts of things which we can still do for disabled people, but Britatin can be proud of the way in which during the last fifty years she has looked after disabled people. I will not make invidious distinctions by citing other countries, but there are countries—many fully-developed, civilised and rich countries—which do not do as well as we in Britain have done.
This movement started in the voluntary agencies in this country before the First World War—as far as the blind are concerned, in a Resolution of this House as long ago as 1914—and after the war in the development of St. Dunstan's and Lord Roberts' workshops, as well as the voluntary scheme for finding preferential employment for disabled ex-Service men and in many other schemes. This movement was then given the impetus of Parliamentary power and influence by the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944.
I think, looking back, that it is right that we should praise the promoters of those Acts for having started a way of thought about disabled people which, during the last thirty or forty years, has borne fruit in such a great variety of directions. The 1944 Act was the child of Mr. Ernest Bevin. I was in the House at the time it was passed. I well remember the earnestness and keenness with which he and his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Tomlinson, brought those proposals to the House. They worked very well. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that this Bill is only a meagre effort and therefore to be received with, I think he said reluctance—

Mr. Evans: No.

Sir I. Fraser: The hon. Member used some qualifying word of that sort. I forget the word he used, but it was to the effect that the Bill had been received coldly.

Mr. Evans: Why worry about me?

Sir I. Fraser: I think that, on the contrary, it is a testimony to Mr. Ernest Bevin and those of that day, in all


quarters of the House, that the Act has worked so well and that there is not left any large statutory Measure which could be taken to help the disabled. It does not follow that there is not much to do for them, but it can be done with existing legislation brought up to date and made more streamlined with this small Measure.
Not much is changed by this Measure, for the very good reason that the 1944 Measure and all that Ministers have done under it was, and is, so good. This is no pat on the back for this Government or any other Government, but for all hon. Members and, particularly, for the civil servants and staff who work the schemes at the lower level. There is, for instance, the obvious example of the sixteen-year provision, which is of great help in enabling children to go straight on without a gap.
The provision whereby persons shall not enter vocational training establishments or sheltered workshops unless or until it is certified that their disability is likely to last for twelve months has been justified by the Parliamentary Secretary on one ground, by the hon. Member for Lowestoft on another, and I want to justify it now on what I regard as an even more important ground. It is a profound mistake to start teaching anyone how to be blind or how to be disabled until one is absolutely sure that he really will be. The worst thing possible for any young person, or indeed, for any person is to be taught how to be blind or how to be disabled while there is still a very good chance that he will not be.
Many disabilities have very little effect indeed upon a man's capacity to carry on in an ordinary job in an ordinary way. For example, if a man happens to be a farm labourer, he can go on being a farm labourer until he is almost blind. All he needs to know is which end of the cow the milk comes from, and he needs a very small amount of sight for that.

Air. George Chetwynd: He has to make sure it is not a bull.

Sir I. Fraser: He needs to see just enough for that; it is very obvious, is it not? If he is a railway engine driver, on the other hand, a vey small degree of

disability puts him out of that particular job. It is good, therefore, that the best possible information should be had on the question whether a person really will be disabled for twelve months or for a substantial period of time—one must take some period of time—before he is sent off to be specially trained.
The assumption that disabled people are best cared for in sheltered workshops or in special conditions must not be exaggerated. I am glad to read that the Piercy Report itself says that the best thing for the disabled is to get them out of the sheltered workshops into ordinary industry. In this connection, I welcome the suggestion that the Ministry should take over the supervision of these vocational training establishments and sheltered workshops. The work will all come into one hand, a hand which has managed the care of the disabled very well for many years now, the hand of the Ministry of Labour and its successive Ministers and staff. I know that they will continue, as they have in the past, to impress upon those concerned with the training of the disabled and their employment in sheltered workshops that the best possible thing for the disabled is to get them out of the sheltered workshops as quickly as possible and into ordinary industry.
I have no particular criticism of the quota provisions. If there is here and there a corporation, company or employer which does not keep up to the obligations of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, there are plenty of powers which may be applied, without new legislation. It is simply a matter of putting down a Question calling attention to it, and gingering up the Minister of Labour, whoever he is, to see that the Act is carried out.
Let us remember that the success of the disabled persons legislation depends more upon the good will of thousands of employers, large and small, and of the trade unions, than it does upon any large measure of compulsion. Compulsion is there, but it would be a mistake for the Ministry of Labour to become a snooping policeman in this matter. It would very quickly undo some of the good will which has been such an important factor. It is not enough to compel people to employ the disabled. The best thing is to sell them the idea that the disabled can make extremely good servants and can work very well in the office, in the factory, or


in other walks of life. It is by no means true that the severely disabled must look in vain for girls to marry them, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft suggested. Just as girls love a sailor, so one often finds that they love a disabled soldier or sailor, and it is not true to suggest that a disabled man will be bereft in that respect. Nor is it true that the severely disabled can be employed very seldom or rarely.
There are many very badly disabled people who can be, and are being, employed in open industry if the goodwill of the trade unions and the employers is sought; and it is sought. I know of a great many men, very severely disabled, who are employed in factories where, in order to help them along, most of the rules and customs of the trade unions are quietly blinked at or abandoned in their case. When redundancy comes, it is often the disabled man who is kept on, put on to some little out-of-the-way job by the shop steward or by the foreman so that he will still be there when better times come. We ought to be very grateful to employers, to the trade unions and to the men in the shops themselves for the way in which they give this help to disabled people and make a success of the 1944 Act.
There ought to be some liaison between the hospital and the sources of vocational training and employment. One of the recommendations of the Piercy Committee was to just that effect. The Minister did not touch on it, presumably because legislation is not required to provide for it.

Sir F. Messer: It is provided in the original Act.

Sir I. Fraser: I should have been aware of that, perhaps. The Piercy Committee stresses the importance of what it calls a joint conference between doctors, employers of labour and representatives of the trade unions, considering a man's case at the time when he comes out of hospital, discussing with him what he can do and how best he can be fitted in. The placing of disabled persons is an individual job, and the extent to which doctor, employer, and trade union official discuss with the man how he can best be placed, what he can still do, where one can find a round hole into which the round peg can fit, determines the degree of success one can achieve in the business of placing.
I should like to express my warm praise of what the Ministry of Labour has done since 1944, under all Ministers, and of what has been done in Remploy and the various vocational training establishments, whether voluntary or Governmental. The greatest encouragement should be given to them. I stress once again, however, that they should be used as means of getting disabled people into ordinary industry or ordinary jobs. That is where they are happiest, and that is where they can be most easily absorbed. As my final word, I repeat my thanks to employers and to the trade unions for the way they have helped in overcoming the difficulties of finding employment for disabled people.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: The Bill is another indication of the realisation that society in general, through the State, has an increasing responsibility for the care and welfare of the disabled. Any Measure brought before the House which seeks to co-ordinate the work of Government Departments or to increase the power of local authorities or the Government in this respect should have general support. In so far as the Bill seeks to bring about a better system of co-ordination between Government Departments, it is welcomed. Reference has already been made to Clauses 1, 2 and 3, which are desirable and can be supported from this side of the House. However, the Bill touches only the very fringe of the problem. The Parliamentary Secretary rightly said that it is a modest Bill.
I join the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) in complimenting and thanking the voluntary organisations which have operated for many years to assist those who have been disabled as the result of war, in industry or from other causes. These organisations have performed yeoman service over the years. Similarly, in the education and training of handicapped and mentally deficient children many local authorities have in recent years done a good job of work. My own county council has done a great deal in that respect. These experiences have assisted the Ministry in dealing with the problems of the disabled. Particularly since 1941, when a number of Acts passed by this House have been administered, there has been a growing desire on the part of the community and hon.
Members to do all they can to assist the disabled in that way.
I compliment the medical men, the officials of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health and all the others who throughout the years have done so much by way of treatment, rehabilitation and training for injured persons. Great advances have been made in treatment and rehabilitation; wonderful work has been done which has been of great assistance to disabled men, particularly those in industry. I join with other hon. Members in thanking the individuals and organisations which have done so much for many men who cannot help themselves.
If the rate of progress in the provision of suitable work for the disabled had been as great as that in respect of treatment and rehabilitation, I should feel a great deal more satisfied. My complaint about the Bill is that it does not go far enough in making some definite provision of suitable work for disabled men. If after all the treatment and rehabilitation a man cannot find a suitable job and cannot mix with his fellows at work, he becomes depressed and deteriorates and becomes hopelessly despairing.
I would call the attention of the Parliamentry Secretary to an inquiry into pneumoconiosis cases in South Wales some years ago. At Llandough the Medical Research Council examined hundreds of men disabled by pneumoconiosis. The object was to ascertain why the disease progressed so quickly in certain cases where it was only in the early stages. There was a certain amount of agitation. It was felt by many medical men that pneumoconiosis sufferers who were fit for light work could return to their employment. There was also the feeling on the part of some others that they should not do so because it might lead to a deterioration in their condition.
From this thorough examination of hundreds of men there emerged the fact, according to the information and advice which was tendered, that deterioration took place at a quicker rate when pneumoconiosis sufferers were not in employment. Although such men were to some extent exposed to dust on the surface or underground in certain conditions, it was found that on average their condition did not deteriorate to the same extent as that of pneumoconiosis suf-

ferers who remained idle for a number of years. The outstanding feature of the examination was the discovery that men who remained unemployed suffered a greater worsening in their condition than men who had suitable employment in the industry. If a man is unemployed, his condition will deteriorate, he will lose interest and he will cease to take the interest in society, his work and the locality which he should do if he had employment.
The figures are alarming, and I cannot see how the problem can be properly dealt with by local authorities. There are about 50,000 disabled unemployed in the country at present, and of these 4,000 still require sheltered employment. That is a large number of disabled men. How can the local authorities, even under this modest Bill, cope with that problem? It may be that in certain parts of the country the number of unemployed is not very large, but in industrial areas, particularly South Wales, hundreds of men in one locality may be out of work. How can any local authorities, unless considerable financial assistance is provided, set up schemes to provide such men with suitable work?

Sir K. Joseph: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there are 50,000 disabled men who are unemployed but are employable?

Mr. Finch: They are disabled unemployed men.

Sir K. Joseph: Are they employable, or are they so disabled that they are beyond employment?

Mr. Finch: They are not beyond employment. They are suitable for employment. Four thousand of them require sheltered employment, but the others are fit for other forms of light work.
This is not a local problem. It is a national one. How can local authorities, which are bound by rates and hamstrung by boundaries, hope to cope with a situation of this kind? They can be given assistance. I approve of the Bill if it will give additional power to local authorities to help them in this respect, but I do not want to deceive myself by thinking that if we pass the Bill we shall find employment for the thousands of men who are still disabled. The problem must be dealt with in a far more comprehensive way than is proposed.
The machine already exists to some extent. I think that, given the assistance, Remploy can do the job. Remploy has had wonderful experience in commercial activities and the training of men. It knows precisely to what extent disabled men can perform certain types of work. It has not been able to employ men to the extent that we desired. More could be done. It was originally planned that it should employ 12,000 persons. It at present has just over 6,000, which is a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs.
It must not be thought that Remploy can be run to make a profit. We cannot possibly get a profit in that way. The profit to us is represented by the fact that we are giving men a new life. I have met some seriously disabled men employed by Remploy, and the fact that they are working has made a wonderful change in them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind that local authorities can do something with Remploy. If he can say that he is prepared to ensure that local authorities are given sufficient financial assistance to act with Remploy we shall look upon the Bill with a greater degree of satisfaction. Although we support the Bill, it will not solve the problem of the many men who are fit only for light work but who are not in a position to get it and who have no hope of getting it.
There are other numerous irritations for the disabled. When a man shows that he can earn over £1 a week, or £52 a year, he cannot get unemployability allowance if he becomes idle. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. A man who cannot earn £1 a week must be in very bad shape. Some employers will employ a man for a day or two a week to help and encourage him and will pay him, perhaps, £2 10s. or £3 a week, but if after two or three weeks he goes back for his unemployability allowance, he cannot get it. There are similar restrictions concerning National Assistance when a man is earning more than £1 a week. I agree that there must be a ceiling to what a man can earn, but that £1 a week should disqualify him for benefit is unreasonable. All these factors deter a man from taking employment.
Similarly, there is the old workman's compensation Act. In the coalfields, there are thousands of men who are idle and who receive compensation, but immediately they take a job at a fair wage their compensation is reduced. Often, we

have to explain to them that the liability is with the employer, but it is difficult for a man to understand why his compensation should be wiped out. I agree that this does not apply under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, but it does apply to workmen's compensation. All these things create suspicion among the vast numbers of disabled men. The Parliamentary Secretary should look at some of these problems with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to see what can be done to be more accommodating in the treatment of injured men who may earn a few pounds a week by light employment.
Reference has been made to the quota. A man invariably desires to return to his old employment if he possibly can. When an employer is unable to employ him again, he should say so to the Ministry of Labour in writing. Let us have some means of checking up all these cases. I know that many employers have been accommodating to many of these men, but there are others who have not.
If a man is disabled or meets with an accident in the course of his employment, he naturally looks to his employer to return to work of some kind in the industry in which he has been employed. The employer may, of course, have legitimate reasons for not employing him; the man may be so seriously disabled as not to be a suitable employee. Let us have it in writing and know the position of the employer. The information would be valuable for the Ministry of Labour. We could then check up the attitude of the employers. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, has said nothing upon these lines and there is no comprehensive method of checking up these cases.
I have met many men who have said, "I have had an accident. There is no chance to go back to work and I am finished. I must seek work from the employment exchange." I know that the divisional officers of the Ministry of Labour have done a good job, particularly in South Wales, but nevertheless a man in this position seems isolated and finished.
One other matter to which I should refer is the troublesome cases of men suffering from dermatitis. I am sorry to see that the Ministry of Pensions and


National Insurance does not appear to be represented on the Front Bench. Dermatitis is a classic example of a disease of the skin due to handling dust or liquids, perhaps underground, in a factory or in a workshop. For a time, the disease is severe, but in lightens and passes away temporarily, but when a man takes a job it becomes active again. There are scores of men in the coalfields suffering from dermatitis who simply cannot get a job. If they return to work underground, the dermatitis recurs. Other employers are afraid to employ them and they are left isolated. It is true that they get medical treatment.
A great deal is done by way of rehabilitation as far as possible, but work is not provided. These men are up against a stone wall. I know a skilled engineer in my constituency who has given his life to engineering but who has dermatitis and is no longer wanted. Employers would like to employ him, but some say that it is an infectious disease. There is a reluctance on the part of the employer to give him even the lightest of work. The result is that his life is dwindling away on unemployment benefit.
These are the problems. It is all very well to talk about rehabilitation, training and treatment. All these things have been done very effectively. The provision of work, however, is not being tackled in the same way. That is why I am disappointed with the Bill. I welcome it only in so far as it gives some power to help us to treat the disabled men, but we must still tackle in a bolder way the provision of suitable work. Where the employer finds it impossible to provide work, the responsibility rests upon the State. Whether it is done by Remploy or by the local authorities, it should be done in a more comprehensive manner than is suggested in the Bill.

8.27 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on two matters. In the previous debate initiated by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), I raised the question of unemployability allowance, and I repeat again the hope that we will get some change in the present system. I suggest to the hon. Member

that the numbers he quoted were spread over a large area. My own city has a considerable number, but I think that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall be able to cope with a great many of those who are in need.
To the hon. Member for Lowestoft, in defence of my sex, I would say that I do not think women have any fears of marrying men who are at all disabled. The hon. Member may remember that before the war, during the time when there was a lot of unemployment, it was even suggested that blind men who had a stable pension were not getting the most desirable women to look after them. Women took them as husbands because they knew, unfortunately, that they had a stable income.
As a member of a delegation to Germany, I was interested to find that the Germans, who have had a study group for eight years, consider that the methods used in this country are the best in the world, with Sweden coming next and the United States third. I think they have a chance of giving an unbiased opinion.
I welcome quite a number of the proposals in the Bill, but I have a question arising out of the Title, where are the words:
provision by local authorities of employment or other work under special conditions.
I am not quite certain what the special conditions are. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to go into more detail about that when he replies to the debate.
Clause 1 says that for the words in the principal Act
'not being under the age of sixteen years' there shall … be substituted the words 'being over compulsory school age for the purposes of the Education Act, 1944 …
I am glad at this provision, but I should like to be assured whether there is any possibility of keeping a young person at school over the compulsory school age, if there is a chance of his going on to a grammar school. I understand that, according to the Act of 1944, the Minister of Labour has power to enable fees to be paid to the local authority and the school, and as many of these young people are backward because of physical disability, I am sure that it may be more beneficial to keep them at school even after reaching the school-leaving age.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would the hon. Lady not agree that probably the place for those children at that time would be a special school until they reach 16? Has she that in mind?

Miss Vickers: I do not necessarily agree with that. I have seen how for such children, quite a number of them, including blind children, and not only in this country but in Colonial Territories where I was working, it is often very beneficial for them to be at school. After all, we say we wish them to become normal, despite their disabilities, and I have in mind several cases of children who have gone to grammar schools and made good there.
Clause 2 says:
In subsection (2) of section seven of the principal Act … for any reference to six months there shall be substituted a reference to twelve months.
I should like to know why it is necessary to have any stated time. Would it not be possible to take every case on its merits? I should have thought that that would have been far better.
I am not altogether in agreement with the proposal for voluntary removal from the register, and I should like some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary about this. Suppose an individual takes his name off the register and, therefore, is no longer registered as disabled and is not included in his firm's quota of disabled, and suppose that he falls down slightly on his job because he is not as physically fit as he thought. Will he be liable to be sacked because he is not on the quota of disabled people because his name has been removed from the register? I am not at all sure I like this provision, even though this can be done voluntarily, for I think that sometimes people may, perhaps, regard themselves as having recovered more than they really have. I am afraid that there may be a set back to them in their employment, or that it may be detrimental to their employment.
By Clause 3, local authorities have power to provide certain workshops. I should like to support an argument made by one hon. Member opposite about Remploy, that where there is a Remploy in an area any sheltered workshop there should be attached to the Remploy. I think that one central organisation and

administration has the necessary know-how, and I hope that it will be augmented. The local Remploy would be helpful in selling the goods, and we do not want two organisations trying to compete with each other.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance about the voluntary organisations, because many of them have done a considerable amount of work in the past. We do not want to see local authorities giving all their grants to sheltered workshops of their own, perhaps to the detriment of the voluntary organisations. There are at the moment in several places—I am particularly interested in one—organisations of disabled people themselves who are in the process of setting up some form of sheltered workshops, including handicraft sections. I hope that nothing in the Bill will deter local authorities from supporting those organisations.
I am disappointed that provisions for motor cars and tricycles for disabled people are not mentioned in the Bill. It is a great pity that the granting of this form of transport comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. When a person wishes to have any form of tricycle or motor car he has to be medically examined. The decision is left with the Ministry of Health which then has to confer with the Ministry of Labour on whether the person needs that form of transport for purposes of work. Obviously, there must be a medical examination, but it should be for the Ministry of Labour to recommend directly whether the individual should have a motor car or tricycle to attend work, because the Ministry finds the employment and, therefore, is in a better position to judge the need.
At present, there is far too much delay in securing these vehicles for the individuals concerned, and sometimes an employer cannot wait for the disabled person to take up the employment. Therefore, I should like to see action taken whereby gradually all disabled people would come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour.
As has been emphasised already, these people may be physically handicapped but they are mentally normal, and the more they can be brought into the ordinary walks of life the better. Several hon. Members of this House are disabled, but they take a very active part in the


business of the House. We never think of them as having any form of disability. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) is a case in point. We should begin to consider the rest of the disabled people in the country in the same way.
Some workshops originally set up for the blind are becoming almost empty owing to the decrease in the numbers of blind persons. Would it not be possible to provide that other disabled people should be able to take up work in these workshops? I know that some fear is expressed that the blind, who have always had a special call on our sympathies, might have some work taken away from them, but I think that this arrangement could be very well carried out. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will advise that, wherever possible, other disabled persons should be taken into workshops for the blind which are not at present fully occupied. I believe that such an arrangement would be beneficial to all concerned.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of the Bill in his opening speech. I wish the Bill well, and I hope it will bring much happiness to the many people with whom it is concerned.

8.39 p.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: This subject is, of course, of very great interest to me and it would be expected that I should say that the Bill does not go far enough. I should like to see the whole problem of handicapped people treated comprehensively, but that does not prevent my saying that the Bill should be welcomed—because it is another step in that direction. We on these benches cannot expect more than one step at a time from those who occupy the benches opposite.
There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers) has said, and there are aspects of this problem which have yet to be very deeply considered. I am completely in sympathy with one thing said by the hon. Lady. Whilst I was Chairman of the Ministry of Education Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children, I used what influence I had to secure that every child who could benefit from education in a normal school should be placed in one.
This weekend I had the honour of opening three special schools in Birmingham. It is wonderful what the community there is doing for handicapped children. In my speech I pointed out something that needed to be said, namely, that it is possible to do too much for handicapped children. The reason for that is that the handicapped child or adult is in a mental state of constantly reaching out to attain. On the other hand, normal people desire always to rush in and assist the handicapped person. Parents are guilty of this to a great extent, not realising that what is wanted is an encouragement of the effort of the handicapped person to reduce the gap between the handicap and normality.
Remploy factories are good. I have been in them and I have seen the wonderful work done by them. Handicapped people do good work because they feel that something more than ordinary efficiency is expected of them. What is more, a handicapped person usually has not the outside interests of the unhandicapped. I believe that those responsible for teaching operations in Remploy factories often do too much of the work themselves, not leaving enough for the handicapped person; whereas an instructor who was himself disabled would not be as soft as the normal instructors, and the individual would respond to the stronger test and would be the better for it.
I like Clause 3 of this Bill. Indeed, about the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) introduced his Motion into the House, I was presumptuous enough to write a pamphlet. In it I questioned whether or not the local authorities should play a part in the provision of sheltered workshops. We are sometimes tempted to look at the origin of the handicap. In the case of physical handicaps there are congenital cases and there are others which are the result of accident or of disease. The local authority already has welfare powers. Everybody who is interested in these matters knows that a wonderful job can be done in the special schools for the handicapped child. When the child reaches adolescence and is no longer the responsibility of the education authority, if the local authority is also the education authority the case can be followed through by the same people.
Here the local authorities will be able to determine whether the degree of disablement is such that the individual can work only in a sheltered workshop. I happen to represent one of the constituencies referred to which, although the Parliamentary Secretary may not know it, has an after-care workshop for tubercular people. It was opened during the war and has proved successful, not merely in teaching and training, but also in the high quality of its products. Remploy factories could not use this type of people because they are chronic or long-term cases. They are not rushing to their death, and they are able to do a job of work at times. Their day must be a shortened one, however, because they must not be under pressure. It is the type of sheltered workshop which is able to take into consideration every aspect of the individual, and because of that it is doing a great job of work. I am pleased to see a reference to that type of workshop in the Bill.
It is sometimes said that we cannot afford to lose £9 a week on those for whom something can be done and who are employed in Remploy. However, that loss is a tribute to the success of Remploy. Remploy is something more than a sheltered workshop. People go to Remploy in order to become proficient enough to go outside into normal work and earn their own living. The success of Remploy is in the fact that it cannot retain the people who would make it economic. Those people go into ordinary employment.
The way in which our social services have evolved makes it impossible for us to avoid some anomalies—for instance, the separate authorities, the education authority responsible for the special schools, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour, since the implementation of the Tomlinson Report, under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. I was in the House when that Measure was discussed and I took some part in the debates.
Of course, it would be perfect organisation if we had the machinery revolving around one centre. The truth is that man himself is too diversified for that, so that in all probability it is impossible. What is possible is to correlate the activities of the authorities. For instance, throughout the country

there are thousands of patients who are benefiting from occupational therapy.
I know of a man who attended a sanatorium and who had been earning a few pounds a week as a railway goods porter until he went down with tuberculosis. After treatment, he became convalescent and had occupational therapy. He then discovered that he possessed an aptitude about which nobody had known before. As a consequence, he was sent to the Egham Training Centre to learn light metal work. He finally went into industry as a watchmaker earning three times as much as he had earned when he was healthy.
I do not say that that is an invitation to anybody to become T.B., but it is an indication of what can be done by various Government Departments. Here was the hospital with its occupational therapy—and reference is made to diversional work, which is another name for occupational therapy—then the Egham Training Centre, which comes under the Ministry of Labour.
There is no reason why there should not be a bridge between the various Departments ultimately responsible, provided that we find the means whereby an individual can be seen to be taking certain definite steps towards a certain conclusion. The Bill will help in that respect. If the Bill had meant that this procedure would take the place of Remploy, then it would have been a bad Bill. If it is in additon to Remploy, however, it can deal with a type of patient which Remploy cannot so easily handle, namely, the person who has come through the welfare services and is recognised as a welfare case. This type of person may have been dealt with as a child in a special school, by a local education authority, and then passed on to the welfare authority.
The Bill is not as good a one as I should have liked to see. I should have liked to see a comprehensive Measure, which ensured that wherever an individual could not earn his living by any means he should receive a handicapped person's allowance, rather than have to obtain National Assistance. Such a person is 100 per cent. handicapped. When a soldier is assessed as being unable to earn his living he is given a 100 per cent. pension, so why should not the civilian who is in a similar position have a recognised allowance, and not merely National Assistance? It may


be asked, "What is the difference?" There is a very great difference. The allowance is a payment, as of right, to somebody because of his condition and not because of his misfortune in being poor.
Notwithstanding the criticisms which can be levelled at the Bill because it does not go the whole way, it can, however, be said that it points the way, and if it is one step nearer our goal it means that we can take further steps, until we bring complete emancipation to disabled persons.

8.52 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: Those of us who are interested in health and welfare matters tend to follow each other with almost monotonous succession in these debates. On the last occasion when I heard the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) speak I thought that he made a thoroughly alarming and almost mischievous speech on the National Health Service Contributions Bill. But today I though that we heard from him a most wise, mature and philosophic speech, which became him extremely well.
I was one of those who read the pamphlet written by him, and to which he has referred. Only yesterday the national Press carried a quotation from a speech made by him when he opened the three schools which, he told us, were so dear to his heart. I am glad that it was he, with his sensible, moderate and constructive approach to the Bill, who delivered a gentle rebuke to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), whose rather carping attitude so belied his normal one in these matters.
I welcome the Bill and wish to draw attention to only two things. First, as I have said before, the Bill comes from the recommendations of the Piercy Committee, and that Committee must never be separated in our thoughts from the Percy Royal Commission, because both mean an enormously increased sphere of responsibilities for local authorities. It can never be said again that local authority activities can be dull or limited in scope; there is room for greater initiative and work in both voluntary and local authority bodies in putting into action the dynamic and almost revolutionary concepts of the Piercy Committee and the Percy Royal Commission.
In the Bill the Government have done very much better than they have allowed us to know. As the hon. Member for Tottenham has said, much of the benefit for the disabled must depend upon the co-ordination of all the separate and autonomous services in the field. Many of the recommendations of the Piercy Report were, in fact, addressed to this matter of co-ordination. It follows that many of the recommendations involve no extra expenditure but simply the better use of existing services.
There were in the Report forty-six recommendations, several of them were merely exhortatory. Many of the both exhortatory and more direct recommendations would not reach unanimous agreement. We heard the hon. Member for Lowestoft say that he, for one, did not accept some, and yet the hon. Gentleman rebuked the Government for not having enforced them all. Six of the forty-six recommendations that are not merely exhortatory have already, so far as I can see, been accepted by the Government; three on previous occasions—two of which affect disablement resettlement officers, their selection and training, and one which affects the survey which was a recommendation of the Percy Royal Commission—and three in this Bill.
Fourteen of the recommendations affect either hospitals or the Ministry of Health, and I was getting rather dolorous about these and what had happened to them when I looked at page 130 in Part I of the Report of the Ministry of Health which says that the Report of the Piercy Committee
published towards the close of the year said in describing the welfare services of local authorities: 'It is clear that only the fringes of the field have yet been touched.' It summed up the responsibility of local authorities as being (a) to cater for the social needs of disabled in the employment field and (b) to meet social and occupational needs of other disabled persons.
It continues—and here is why I read this short extract—
Reference to action taken on the Committee's recommendations concerning local authority services will be made in next year's Report.
So that towards the autumn of this year, we can look forward to hearing from the Ministry of Health what has happened to the fourteen recommendations affecting the Ministry. I do not expect the


Government to debate or enforce them all. It is possible for the Government to disagree with some of the Piercy Committee recommendations. If the hon. Member for Lowestoft can disagree, why should not the Government?
Then there were six further recommendations addressed to the Ministry of Labour. It seems that these recommendations, which do not involve legislation, involve little money. Indeed, one recommendation is to consider circulating to all general practitioners information about the rehabilitation services available in each area. One asks them to consider extra medical assistance to industrial rehabilitation units; one requests part-time training of tuberculous patients and one a survey into whether more facilities are needed to make unemployed ex-T.B. patients fit for work. One of those does involve a different form of future expenditure, namely, the experimental comprehensive rehabilitation unit.
One thing on which I am sure all hon. Members would agree is the interest of both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. We have had the Minister sitting through an Adjournment debate of five hours initiated by the hon. Member for Lowestoft and right through today's debate. Many of us know the interest shown by the Parliamentary Secretary, not only in this Chamber, but in activities outside in connection with this work. In all these debates we have had present a representative of the Ministry of Health and this interest is not indulgent. Why not publish a systematic review of those Piercy Committee recommendations which require no legislation and are non-financial and mainly in the co-ordination field? May I commend that suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service who has shown such great interest in this matter. Apart from the interest we all must feel in the recommendations which have not yet come before us, I add my voice to those who welcome this modest Bill which, as was said by the hon. Member for Tottenham, is another step in the right direction.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: In spite of the narrow nature of the Bill, it has enabled us to have an exceedingly useful debate, in which we have had contributions from hon. Mem-

bers who are expert in their field and from others who are animated by an extreme sympathy for the handicapped people. We are all agreed that the disabled should not be segregated from their fellow beings more than is absolutely necessary by the nature of their disability, and I certainly take pride in the fact that we have abolished the word "cripple" from our vocabulary. In referring to these people at one time that was the word commonly used, but now we have abolished it, and as we make progress I hope that we shall also be able to get rid of the word "disabled," because it implies something substandard for these people.
It is better for the disabled that where they can be usefully employed they should work in the general field of employment and not separately, but that does not alter the fact that there are considerable numbers of people who find it impossible to obtain work under normal conditions, and it is therefore essential that we should find sheltered employment for as many of them as possible.
The work in providing sheltered employment has had to be limited by financial considerations. Perhaps we have gone a little too far in interpreting the original purpose of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act which was an exceedingly good welfare Act and has been changed, perhaps, too much into a book-keeping account. Nevertheless, one understands the reason for that.
I want to ask one or two points about the quota. I want to know how it is working and whether the Minister is satisfied with it. Under conditions of full employment, it is not too difficult for any firm to take its quota of disabled people, but in a situation in which employment is becoming more and more difficult it may be that, unless we are particularly vigilant, the quota may lapse and, because of their low standard of efficiency, the disabled people may be the first to go. I ask the Minister to keep a special eye on this situation and to safeguard to the utmost the employment of the disabled under the quota system.
May I turn to the Clause dealing with sheltered employment? The principal question which I want to ask arises from the fact that the position was not absolutely clear from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. Is it intended under the Clause to bring into being additional


sheltered employment or is it just a machinery Clause to transfer authority from one body to another? The success of the Bill will be judged, I believe, on whether it finds one more job for one more disabled person. The more jobs we can find for disabled persons in sheltered conditions the more successful the Bill will be. Is the Bill looked upon as an incentive to local authorities to establish more sheltered factories than they have established hitherto? I know that there are some factories for the tubercular and some for the blind, but as far as I know there is none for handicapped people to find industrial employment.
I believe that the local authorities have a stake in this. It is right that they should be asked to find sheltered employment for these people who are their citizens. I should also like to know, however, whether it means in any way a duplication of the work of Remploy. Where Remploy exists we have a natural field for expansion and if we are trying to expand the services in any town where Remploy exists at the moment, by far the most satisfactory way of doing it is by encouraging Remploy to expand.
Are the restrictions on Remploy which have been operated over the last few years still being enforced as strictly as they were? Is Remploy now able to take more people, to expand and to build more factories? I am particularly glad that the Ministry of Labour has taken over supervision, as I believe that this will lead to an improvement of standards. The standards of Remploy are excellent, and I think that, with its vast experience of its rehabilitation and resettlement schemes, the Ministry will be able to give the local authorities the guidance and help that will enable them also to achieve better standards.
Clause 3 (5) states that for the purposes of this Bill the local authorities are the county councils or the county boroughs. I have a particular interest in this, as a representative of a non-county borough that is perfectly capable of carrying out these functions, and which, in fact, has an excellent Remploy factory. I hope that in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary will consider making these powers directly available to those non-county boroughs that desire them and

that are capable of using them properly. In certain cases, the county authority is a little remote, and this is an exceedingly personal service. I should have thought that a non-county borough with a population of over 60,000 would be perfectly capable of carrying out this work.
There is the question of finance. I understand that the work will be grant-aided, but is this grant to be part of the new block grant, or is it to be a grant especially for this purpose? If it is to be part of the block grant, then, as with education, I am a bit dubious about the extent to which it may be used by an authority that, perhaps, wants to save the ratepayers money. It would be much better if this grant were specific, with a percentage relation to the work done by each authority.
Registration has caused me considerable worry over the years. People come to us in our constituencies who are more or less permanently disabled through industrial accident or through illness but who have a real fear that by being registered they are, as it were, putting themselves out of the chances of getting a job rather than putting themselves in. I know that, at the beginning, the whole purpose of registration was to improve a man's chances of finding work but, particularly in the heavy industrial areas where there may be possibilities of unemployment, some of them feel that if they are registered as disabled their prospects of employment are lessened.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could give some guidance on that point. Personally, I believe that these people should register. I believe that the Ministry has the machinery to help them. Nevertheless, there is still this lurking fear that some of them have, that by registering they are putting a label on themselves and that some employers will not look at them. That attitude should be discouraged, if possible.
We can help in two ways. This is a machinery Bill, perhaps, but we already have great powers, if we make use of them, and if there is more initiative and drive, to press on with solving these problems. I would have thought that the Government themselves, and the local authorities concerned, could be encouraged more and more to place work in the way of the sheltered factories, whether local authority or Remploy. I know that


the Government are doing a considerable amount in that way, but I would like still further help to be given on those lines.
As I said at the beginning, the real test of the Bill is that it has to find a job for one disabled person, or for ten, or, we hope, for a thousand disabled persons over a period, and it is because I believe that this Measure will give some inducement to local authorities to act more vigorously than before that I give it my support.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is a very modest Bill, and I do not think that there is any doubt about that. It does not appreciably improve the services for the disabled, but changes the machinery by which they are carried out. I agree that in the last fourteen years a very great deal has been done for the disabled, and it may be that those other things that both sides of the House agree remain to be done can be done by administration and without additional legislation. If so, let us all hope that they are carried out as soon as possible.
Of the three Clauses, the one that I should like to commend to the House most strongly is Clause 1. It is a good thing to get rid of the waiting period between leaving school and starting training for work as a disabled person. I am particularly glad that it goes back only as far as the school leaving age because it would be a disaster if occupational training were started too soon. Undoubtedly it is most important that medical training should be carried out in school, for spastics and children with similar disabilities, but I feel that in the case of the disabled more than in any other a broad education is necessary.
When the ordinary child leaves school he has the world before him. He can enjoy most active games. But many of the disabled have a very limited sphere of interest and, therefore, they should have a broad education, in literature and science, for example, and not exclusively an education for work—not only for a means of living, but also for a means of life.
I am not so happy about Clause 2. It suggests that before a person is entered on

the list of disabled it should be stated that the disability is likely to last not merely six months but at least twelve months. That is a medical point. I would say as a doctor that the most difficult thing we have to do is to forecast the future—and the most dangerous, too. One of the first things a medical student learns is that it is very dangerous to tell a person or his friends that he is not likely to recover. If the patient does not die the doctor has made an enemy, not only of the patient but of his friends and relations as well.
It would not be a disaster if the doctor were wrong and said that the disability would last for six months, and that a certain amount of training should be given to the person concerned. Clearly if such an individual did get better he would in most cases want to return to his original occupation rather than the occupation for which he was trained. An example was given of the watchmaker. I imagine that that is a very exceptional case. After all, in so far as watchmaking is more skilled, I do not think the community is at any disadvantage because a person has changed from a less skilled trade to a more skilled trade.
I want to speak most on Clause 3. This Clause drops the pilotage of the Ministry of Health and takes on the direction of the Minister of Labour. At the moment we have a Minister of Labour who has the exceptional advantage in that he has been Minister of Health. But this state of affairs may not last for ever. I wonder whether the outlook of the Ministry of Labour as a whole will be as health-conscious as that of the Ministry of Health.
The problem of the disabled is, to a very large extent, a medical one. This is admitted again and again in the Piercy Report. Recommendation 17 says:
Since assessment for acceptability for work will often turn on medical evidence, specialist medical opinion should be available to reinforce or advise disablement resettlement officers and Disablement Advisory Committee panels".
That is one recommendation. The same sort of view is repeated elsewhere.
Although I appreciate that the change may be for administrative convenience, I wonder whether it would not be to the advantage of the disabled if there were


a watching brief on health always available for them. I do not stress this—perhaps there are very good reasons against it—but I do feel that we should stress throughout that, in the training of the disabled, in the selection of occupations for them, and in the supervision of their progress, recovery and capacity for new work, medical considerations must always come in. I hope that, under the new arrangements, this will not be forgotten.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: We have had a very useful and informative debate. I think that every hon. Member who has taken part has been an expert in the subject under discussion, and I suppose that I shall be about the least expert of all who have taken part. As a disabled man myself, I am very sincerely concerned in this subject from the point of view of disabled ex-Service men generally.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the best service we can do is to find work for the disabled. We all agree about that. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill represents another step in that direction, one does not feel quite so sure that it is a Bill to find work for the disabled. We were told by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that there had been a carping attitude on the part of some Opposition speakers.
We have always regarded the problem of war pensioners as a matter outside party politics, and I think that we should, as far as we can, regard the problem of the handicapped and disabled generally as being outside party politics. However, that does not preclude us from making our legitimate criticisms of proposals brought forward either by the Government, as they are now, or by my party if it were on the opposite side of the House. The very quality, experience and knowledge of those who have taken part in the debate so far is, surely, a guarantee that what they say is said not in a spirit of carping criticism but in an attempt to find the best solution of the problems with which we are faced in caring for the severely disabled and handicapped. The reduction to the school-leaving age has been welcomed by practically everyone who has taken part in the debate.
We regret that the Bill deals only with the severely disabled. Some unemployment figures have been given. I have with me the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) on 26th February. The hon. Gentleman said:
In December, 1957, there were 43,731 wholly unemployed registered disabled persons classified as suitable for ordinary employment, of whom 16,702 had been unemployed for six months or more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 348.]
Now we have the position that among the severely disabled there are about 3,800 unemployed. More than 2,000 of these persons live within easy reach of Remploy factories, and I support my hon. Friends who have pleaded for Remploy to be considered in dealing with more of these unemployed severely disabled. It can deal with some of them better and at less cost than local authorities can. We must be careful not to duplicate the work for the severely disabled. If Remploy can do the work we ought not unnecessarily to ask local authorities to set up workshops in direct competition with it.
I know that Remploy is not a profit-making organisation. The Minister might reply that it is a loss-making organisation. Figures have been quoted to show that the financial loss is about £9 per week per person. However, when we bear in mind that the persons being trained in the Remploy factories are in the main the severely disabled and that because of their training and their association with their fellows they become so self-reliant, self-confident and self-sufficient that they can find employment in the open labour market, it is £9 per week per man well spent. It means that disabled men are put on their feet and able to feel that they are independent and are making their way in the world.
I suggest that there is need to revise the medical and other tests so that more disabled people can be classed in Section (2) as severely disabled. There is a strong case for enlarging the area from which we draw the people who will be classed for the purpose of the Bill as severely disabled, so that more may enjoy the benefits of the Bill.
As has been emphasised again and again this evening, the great need is to make work available for the disabled, and we should like to know the Government's


plans. What we do about rehabilitation and retraining for employment is all to the good, but unless we have jobs available for the men when they have been rehabilitated and retrained, much of our labour will have been in vain.
I also am concerned about the quota. In the past, I have asked questions about what happens when a firm is recognised as having its quota of disabled persons but they either leave or come off the disabled persons register yet continue to be shown on the books of the firm as part of its quota. Is there a systematic examination of the books of firms to ensure that the people who comprise the quota are genuine registered disabled persons? Are there any firms which, for reasons of wastage or dismissal or through people leaving from other causes, are not, in fact, employing the number of persons in accordance with their quota? There is also the important point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). We are operating the quota today in conditions of full employment. What safeguards will there be if we try to operate the same quota in a period of unemployment?
In spite of being told that some of the speeches from this side of the House were carping, I must say that we are to a great extent disappointed in the Bill. We do not oppose it—we know there is good in it—but we have a right to say that we are disappointed. Eighteen months after the publication of the Piercy Report, the Government have succeeded in making a molehill out of a mountain of recommendations. The Bill is a little molehill concerned with machinery, tightening up a screw here and loosening a nut and bolt there. Of the forty-six recommendations, the Bill deals with a further three, making half-a-dozen implemented to date. I hope that before we part with the Bill, the Government will tell us their intentions concerning the remainder of the Piercy recommendations. It may be that they do not require legislation, but at least we should know the Government's intentions. If it is a matter of administration, let us know what administrative action is being taken to ensure that the full spirit of the Piercy Report is being brought to bear upon the problem of the handicapped and the disabled.
By bringing the care and welfare of the disabled and the handicapped under one Ministry, the Government have, on the whole, acted wisely. Probably the Ministry of Labour is the best Ministry to deal with the problem and to co-ordinate all the action which is desirable. There are, however, a few safeguards and guarantees which might be necessary before we give unqualified approval to control by the Ministry of Labour.
One hon. Member spoke about motor cars and motor-propelled tricycles for the disabled. This used to be a matter for the old Ministry of Pensions. Then, it was handed over to the Ministry of Health and, as far as I know, it is still a matter for that Ministry. The point made by, I believe, the hon. Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) was that the Ministry of Labour should have the direct approach to whoever is responsible for allocating the cars. The Ministry of Labour should cut out all the frills and passing the buck from one Department to another and should have a direct approach, so that these people can be provided with this form of locomotion to enable them at the earliest possible moment to obtain and retain employment.
When last I made inquiries about the provision of these vehicles, the position was that only disabled ex-Service men were entitled to the cars and that the motor-propelled tricycles were available for the disabled of both civilian and ex-Service categories. The last I heard was that the number of cars provided six years ago when the Labour Government were in office has not been increased at all. Some of the replacements for cars are a little behind schedule at present. I believe the motor-propelled tricycles are coming off the production lines now at a quicker rate.
Dealing particularly with ex-Service disabled men, I know that very often men with artificial legs find it impossible to carry on with their jobs when they have to travel to and from work in overcrowded public service vehicles and have to stand. They often find themselves good for nothing by the time they reach work. A much wider interpretation should be placed on the qualifications enabling disabled persons to get this form of mechanical conveyance to and from


work, so that they may hold their jobs once they have got them.
What of the welfare staff? Are their functions, under the Bill, to be undertaken by the disablement resettlement officers? Is the present staff adequate? If not, what steps are to be taken to recruit and train additional staff to carry out the obligations laid down by the Bill?
There is one doubt I have about the concentration of this responsibility in one Ministry. I have had this doubt before. It is that a big Ministry becomes all machine and no soul. I digress for a moment to recall that the welfare staff at the old Ministry of Pensions were doing a very fine job for the war disabled. They had the training, the aptitude and the human approach so essential for this kind of work. One feels that since the merger the spirit has been swamped by the machine. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions I gained a very favourable impression of the disablement resettlement officers at the Ministry of Labour. They always worked in amicable co-operation with our own welfare officers. It was a joy to see the way in which they co-operated to assist the war disabled.
As I understand the Piercy Report, today the disablement resettlement officers are just maids of all work, shifting from one department in the Ministry to another, never settling down, never having the opportunity to make their job a vocation. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that under the new dispensation under this Bill the selection of these and other officers dealing with the handicapped and disabled will receive very special attention.
I understand that their training at present is very skimpy, that it is done in just a few days. That really will not do. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that their training should imbue them with patience, tact, kindliness and humanity. That cannot be done in just a few days. Their training should impress them with the fact that they are not just civil servants dealing with forms and papers but are specially chosen men and women dealing with human beings. I know from both personal and Ministerial experience that dealing with the handicapped and disabled is often a very difficult job.
Being a disabled man I am sometimes difficult myself, and I know how handicapped and disabled people can be difficult. Some of us wonder how people who have had to deal with us for as many years as some of us have had to be dealt with have put up with us for so long. It is because I know the problems that I feel strongly that the men and women selected for the job should be people with a vocation.
The material which they handle is difficult, but the potentialities are enormous. Latent qualities of character have to be nurtured, tended and developed and the emphasis placed upon ability and potential achievement rather than disability. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that we are not dealing here with material for the industrial and social scrap-heap, but with valuable and delicate instruments in need of re-adjustment. Therefore, those who handle them must be craftsmen.
Most of my experience has been with the war disabled. Out of a total of 798,000 on the register in 1956 no fewer than 449,000 were the war disabled of the two world wars. Therefore, this is still largely a problem of the war disabled finding employment. I know the difficulties, especially for the disabled of the First World War, because we are all now getting on. We are all 65 years of age or thereabouts, but even the 65s would prefer doing a job to rusting away, in spite of their disability. This is one reason why we have to be so careful about the kind of people we have in an official capacity to deal with these men and their problems. As a disabled man myself, I regard this human aspect of the problem as being of the utmost importance, and I ask the Minister to give his closest attention to the selection of the right personnel in implementing the Bill as far as it affects his Ministry.
It appears that the local authorities will be under a duty to exercise their powers under the direction of the Ministry of Labour. The financial aspect of this has been raised in debate. Will the local authorities receive direct grants, or are the handicapped to be further handicapped by being fed on the crumbs that fall from the table of the municipal block grant? This is an important point which ought to be cleared up before we part with the Bill.
Once the municipal "economaniacs" get on the warpath at local government elections and scare the daylights out of Tory councils, the social services will be sacrificed to lower the rates. I remember fighting an election in Birmingham in my very early days on the question of an increase of 6d. in the rates. I fought it on that issue because, as a result of a reduction in expenditure on the sanitary and health services, the infantile mortality in my ward in the previous twelve months had increased by 5 per cent. If local authorities are to be asked to deal with the problem of sheltered employment for the disabled and handicapped without having adequate Government financial support, the job will not be done. Unless adequate financial provision is made to local authorities, the Bill will be a dead letter before it is on the Statute Book.
As we recognise the war disabled as a national responsibility, so in equity we must recognise all disabled people as a national responsibility. They are such, whether they are disabled as a result of congenital disease or deformity, as a result of sickness or industrial injury, or as a result of services given to the country in war. The nation should take a wider view of these problems than do some of the narrow-minded people one finds in some local authorities. Tonight's Evening Standard reports that in one select part of a place called Bexhill—and I do not know exactly where that is—there is a proposal to build a holiday home for spastic children. The local people there, and I think that they must be a "toffee-nosed" lot of people, are objecting because, according to the paper, they say
… the property is unsuitable for the purpose and would reduce the value of their own properties …
That is the kind of thing we are up against in dealing with these great human problems. If we leave the local authorities at the mercy of the narrow minded, who can see only as far as the parish pump and cannot see the wider horizons, I do not hold out much hope of this Bill being effective. We must have an assurance that adequate direct grants will be made to local authorities in order that the Bill can be fully implemented.
We on this side of the House will co-operate in expediting the passage of the Bill through its various stages, and so speeding it on its way to the Statute Book, from the pages of which its puny

form will be a standing reproach to us all until, either by legislation or administration, this problem is dealt with in a really comprehensive manner.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Carr: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will reply to some of the points which have been made during the debate. It has been an extremely wide one, much wider than the contents of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), who made some complaint about the lack of a wide debate on this subject, will feel somewhat consoled by what has taken place.
The debate has been so wide that it would be intolerable—if not impossible—if I were to try to cover all the points that have been made. I have been invited to discuss everything to do with the disabled in reply to various points made on both sides of the House, from a full account of Remploy down to all that has been done by my Ministry, by local authorities, voluntary associations and the rest. Obviously I could not possibly do that in a reasonable time. However I assure those hon. Members whose points I do not deal with that my Ministry will consider most carefully what has been said, and where other Ministries are concerned with the points, I am sure my right hon. Friends will also study the report of this debate with care.
Whilst I feel strongly that this subject should not become one of party politics, as it never has been—and the debate has not taken that form tonight—nevertheless I was disappointed with the rather uncharitable reception which, to my surprise, the hon. Member for Lowestoft gave the Bill. His attitude tonight surprised me because, as I know from experience of other debates in this House, the hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about this subject and has contributed greatly to it, not only by words in this House but by deeds outside it. So I was surprised that he was not more generous and more accurate in what he said.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) fell into the same error. He asked if the Bill was all that could come out of the mountain of recommendations of the Piercy Committee's Report. I


would have thought he would realise by reading the Report that these are the only recommendations on employment which need legislation. Therefore, it is nonsense to talk about this Bill being a mere mouse, because we are legislating for all that the Piercy Committee's recommendations require us to legislate about. Not only are we legislating, but legislating in the very first Session of Parliament after the publication of the Piercy Report. Of how many reports that have been published on various subjects can that be said? There are not many cases in which the recommendations of reports are implemented by legislation in the very first Session of Parliament after the reports are published.
The rest of the recommendations did not require legislation, and so the Bill is not all that we are getting in this field as the hon. Member for Lowestoft suggested. This is only a small part. We had a debate on the subject in December, and I then gave the House a full account of the progress we were making in implementing the Piercy Committee's recommendations, and at that time the House seemed far more generous towards the progress being achieved than it appeared to be tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) suggested that we might publish a report bringing together an account of progress made in implementing all the Piercy Committee's recommendations. He himself referred to a number upon which action had been taken. I am sure that we have done far more than hon. Members opposite would appear to realise, and I will certainly give careful consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Edward Evans: If I appeared ungracious, I am sorry. I did not mean to be ungracious. I meant to be a little grateful, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is the only opportunity which those of us on this side of the house have to examine the implications of the Piercy Report and how the Government will react to them. Unless the Government make a statement or give us an opportunity to discuss the Report, we are justified, if not in being a little querulous, at least in putting questions to the hon. Member.

Mr. Carr: I will not disagree with that. I disagree with what the hon. Member

appeared to say against the Bill, when he said that it ought to have done a great deal more. The Bill does all the things that the Piercy Committee said it should do. That was the only point I was trying to make.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) had some rather critical things to say and suggested that we were not being very active over a wide range. I am sure that he is mistaken. I am sure that we cannot provide the jobs which he wants provided merely by passing Bills. We can pass Bills which will improve the machinery which enables us to bring disabled men most efficiently to the jobs available for them, but we cannot create jobs for them by passing legislation. The Bill is an attempt to make the machinery as up to date as possible.
I do not disagree that there is always a need for more work for disabled men. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedwellty will not overlook what has been achieved and what is being achieved. For example, between February, 1957, and February this year, unemployment among registered disabled decreased by about 1 per cent., from 51,200 to 50,600. That is still a large figure, but it is continuing the decrease which has been so typical of the last few years. The latest decrease in the last twelve months has taken place at a time when overall unemployment has increased. While overall unemployment has been increasing, unemployment among disabled has continued to decrease.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) mentioned Remploy. Let me take this opportunity, although it is hardly necessary, once again to reaffirm our belief in the work which Remploy is doing and to assure the House that in this Bill we are in no way seeking to set up anything in competition with Remploy. As the hon. Member for Tottenham made clear, there is scope for both. I note what the hon. Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) said about augmenting Remploy establishments where they already exist. That is something which we will keep in mind, but in this respect the hon. Member for Tottenham was right in saying that there is scope for both systems and that there need be no direct competition between them.

Mr. Finch: Remploy's original target was the employment of 12,000 disabled persons. The figure has reached only 6,000. Can the Minister tell us why we are behind the target that was originally fixed?

Mr. Carr: On previous occasions, I have dealt at some length with the Remploy position. The hon. Member's own Government were the first to limit its growth. We also felt it necessary to limit it, but, as I have previously explained, we have been accompanying our measures to check the growth by other measures to make it more efficient and to create a better managerial structure—which are two things necessary with a company of that size, even if it were not employing disabled people. Remploy has grown in a few years from scratch to an organisation employing 6,000 people in ninety factories and a period of consolidation is essential. Anybody studying Remploy's latest report will realise that progress is being made. At the same time we have given Remploy information as to what it can expect for a number of years, so that it can plan on a long-term basis; this has been an important step in helping it to make future progress.
The question was raised of the medical tests for the standards relating to Section (II) of the Disabled Persons Register, I have taken note of the suggestion made, and I am meeting a number of hon. Members tomorrow to discuss the subject. It is not our intention to be ungenerous in that matter; we watch our standards the whole time.
The question of the quota was raised by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. We are not aware of any trouble in maintaining the quota, but we shall watch the position carefully. We try as far as we can to see that firms are keeping up to their quotas although it is not an easy task. The hon. Member for Lowestoft drew attention to a difficulty of this kind some months ago, and if any hon. Member hears of further cases I can say that my Department is always ready to take action. On the whole we are successful.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill referred to the need for humanity. I hope that in taking over this work the Ministry of Labour will apply to it its fairly long and good reputation for humanity in

dealing with people. Our disablement resettlement officers are noted for their humanity, and the hon. Member can be reassured about their training and selection. We have already implemented one of the Piercy Committee's recommendations; we have increased the period of training which disablement resettlement officers receive.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill and the hon. Member. for Stockton-on-Tees also raised the question of finance in connection with the employment services dealt with in the Bill. They wanted to know whether they would now be part of the block grant or would remain direct grant-aided. I can reassure them instantly; they are to remain direct grant-aided.

Mr. Edward Evans: Can the Minister amplify that statement and tell us whether it is now decided that the welfare services under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act will attract grant? Further, can he clear up the point about the mandatory character of the new services?

Mr. Carr: A factor is being included in the calculation for the general grant in order to take account of the welfare services. As the hon. Member knows, that is outside my field and I cannot go into more detail. As to his second question, the present position about making these services mandatory upon local authorities remains unchanged. My right hon. Friend will still have the power to make further services mandatory, just as his right hon. Friends have under the present provisions.
The hon. Member for Tottenham asked about the machinery for transfer from the welfare category to the employment category. I said that I would make sure of the position, and I can now assure the House that the Bill makes no change in this respect. It is up to the welfare authority to approach my Department's D.R.O. whenever it has somebody in that category whom it thinks is coming up to employment standard, and he can be registered as a Section II case. The transfer is perfectly smooth and need cause no difficulty.
A number of questions were asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, and I must ask her to excuse me from answering many of them. This Bill does not affect the present position regarding keeping children at school


beyond fifteen. It is not our intention to use the Bill to try to get children away from school at that age when otherwise they might have stayed longer. The only purpose of the change in age is to catch those few cases of children who leave school at fifteen and thus bridge the gap between fifteen and sixteen which is the age at which we are able to offer them these facilities under the existing provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act.
I can tell my hon. Friend that some local authorities are filling unoccupied places in workshops for the blind with other disabled persons, but I must also tell her that there is a difference of opinion among local authorities regarding the wisdom of doing so. She may, however, be comforted by the knowledge that some local authorities are doing this, and this will give us an opportunity to see how it works. It would be a great pity to have vacant places in workshops while there are disabled people needing vacancies.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees put a number of points, and I have dealt with several of them. The hon. Member asked whether we should encourage people to register. Some are reluctant to do so, because they fear that it may put a label on them and they lessen their chances of getting a job. We should encourage disabled people to register. I am convinced that the special disablement services available to the registered gives them greater help than they would normally receive. Anyone who is in doubt should be advised to register. However, I am sure that it is right to maintain the voluntary principle. I do not think any person should be made to register, but I think that the fear that by doing so a person attaches a label to himself is rapidly disappearing.
The hon. Gentleman asked a fundamental question, whether it was the purpose of this Bill to create more sheltered

workshops or just to alter the machinery. At this stage, the purpose as is stated in the Bill, is clearly, to alter the machinery. We are doing so with a future purpose in mind. The Piercy Committee recommended the altering of the machinery, because the Committee thought that would make it more effective. As I said when introducing the Bill, we should be able to have more effective machinery over the years ahead and to put more power behind the development of these services. That is the ultimate intention of this Bill.
I wish to acknowledge the tributes paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) the hon. Member for Bedwellty and other hon. Members to the officials of my Ministry for the work they have done in aid of the disabled people; to Remploy; to the local authorities and the voluntary organisations. We owe them all our thanks, and it is right that we should thank them publicly. I was glad that many hon. Members paid tribute to the principle of giving work to the disabled. The hon. Member for Bedwellty gave an example of the fact that people suffering from pneumoconiosis held out against the progress of the disease better when they were in work than when they were out of work, which is a striking proof of the rightness of those who believe in giving work to the disabled. That is the spirit in which this Bill is moved, and in which we shall try to implement its provisions. I believe that our work for the disabled is a small but significant part of the whole work of social policy to break down the barriers within our community and build our society into one nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH-WEST WALES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

10.0 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the urgent need for industrial development in South-West Wales. The bare facts of the deteriorating situation are very well known to the Government. In October last year there were over 3,500 unemployed in the area, now there are over 8,000 and it is estimated that the final figure will be between 14,000 and 15,000. There is no prospect of alternative work for these men, a great proportion of whom are over 50 years of age, and there is no hope for the school leavers, of whom there are about 2,300 a year.
For the first time since the war we find ourselves having to invoke the pledge given in the White Paper on Employment in 1944, and we should like to ask the Government tonight whether they accept as one of their primary responsibilities the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment. I want to ask the Government how they propose to implement that pledge in South-West Wales.
I want to make it perfectly clear that we do not regard migration as any answer to this problem. Wales is already far too full of derelict villages and dying communities. Half-a-million people have been driven out of Wales in the last thirty years by economic circumstances, and we say that it is not migration of men that we need now but migration of industry into Wales.
This is not a situation which has suddenly developed overnight. Four years ago, the Government appointed the Lloyd Committee to investigate the special problems which arose from the closure of the old tinplate works. The Report of that Committee has never seen the light of day. It has seen only the twilight of Whitehall. Recently, the Government appointed a four-man Committee—six weeks ago—to inquire into the possibility of adapting some of the old tinplate works to modern production. The Committee was to report as a matter of urgency. I should like to ask the

Minister whether he can tell us when we are to expect that report. We in Wales feel that we have had enough of reports, investigations and inquiries. We feel that the moment has come for concrete proposals and action to implement those proposals.
I want to say something about short-term policy. We need to have a diversication of industry in Wales. This was a policy which was very successfully initiated by the Labour Government. May I ask one or two questions about industries which are already in being, in Carmarthenshire in particular? Can the Minister give any kind of assurance not only about the immediate but also the long-term future of the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey? Will he undertake to have due regard to the need of this establishment when the Government are placing contracts and orders not only now but in the future?
May I also ask him about the R.A.F. establishment at Pembrey? I understand that it is now on a maintenance basis, and I should like to point out to him that these are premises which if they are not needed for the R.A.F., could easily and properly be converted to factory use. There is also a food depôt at Llandovery which is certainly non-productive at the moment. It occupies premises which again could be adapted for industrial premises to give employment in an area where it is very much needed. I am quite sure that hon. Members could multiply instances of this kind in their own constituencies.
What is the President of the Board of Trade doing to induce, to encourage and to steer industries to South-West Wales? In a speech last week, he said that one foreign chemical firm had decided not to go to South Wales because he could not give it a guarantee that the chemical industry would not be nationalised. The President of the Board of Trade has certain responsibilities in the industrial field, and I should have thought that before he made such a statement he would have made some inquiries as to whether, in fact, nationalisation of this industry was in the next Labour Government's programme.
Did he take any steps at all to assure the industrialists concerned that, even if that were so, they would be compensated fully for any capital they invested in this


country, according to the normal practice of the Labour Party? I thought that although the right hon. Gentleman was on the other side of the House, at least he was on the British side of the Atlantic. If I may be so bold, I would tell him that it will take him all his time to explain why it is that with all this growing unemployment in South-West Wales, he has succeeded in bringing only one factory there, and has done practically nothing to alleviate the grave situation that obtains there today.
There is unemployment also in the rural areas, and in the market towns. Here, we need industries that are ancillary to agriculture, and are rural in character. How far will the Government be prepared to assist local authorities in any requests they make for financial assistance to build factories in rural areas? As the hon. Member knows very well, there is only one means of securing loans for the erection of factories in rural areas, and that is through the Development Commission, a Commission which was set up, may I remind the House, by the Finance Act, of 1909—a sunny, vintage year, full of rare and refreshing fruit.
Those powers have been used extensively—although, perhaps, not as widely as some of my hon. Friends would like to see—both in Caernarvon and Anglesey, to establish factories. I should like to see those powers used much more extensively in South West Wales as well.
I suggest that the Government, with the assistance of the local authorities, should consider a programme of development works. Goodness knows, there is plenty of work crying out to be done. There is the building of new schools, the clearing of rural slums and the building of roads. Three years ago, £4 million was set aside for improvement of access roads to hill farms, and £2 million of that was to be spent in Wales. So far, only £250,000 has been allocated. Why could not more be allocated for this purpose? It would mean work on the roads and in the granite quarries as well.
Would the Government consider increasing grants for the maintenance of roads, and for sewerage works and water supplies? Would they be prepared to use their influence with the Central Electricity Authority to accelerate its schemes for the electrification of the countryside?
I know that that is not a direct responsibility of the Government, but will they use their influence? After all, these are all services that are essential to the amenities of the villages and, above all, to the development and efficiency of agriculture.
I turn now to the most important project of all—the proposed strip mill of Richard Thomas & Baldwins. I am quite sure that the long-term answer to our problem is that that mill should be sited in South-West Wales. On sociological grounds, of course, the case for South-West Wales is overwhelming, and I do not think that either the Steel Board, the Government or Richard Thomas & Baldwins would deny that. We are told that vital as are those sociological considerations, the economic aspect is even more important. I do not underestimate the importance of the economic considerations. Let us consider that aspect for a moment. Let me take, first of all, the question of manpower and let me take as my first witness the Iron and Steel Federation which has stated in a recent publication:
In these days of brimful employment and labour immobility, a factor even more important than access to more materials and proximity to markets is that of an adequate supply of suitable labour. …It is thus impossible to contemplate any large-scale development of a new site unless the necessary supply of skilled labour is assured.
The labour force required for the new steel plant is 10,000. That force will be available in South-West Wales and without building new houses and schools, without uprooting men from their homes either in Wales or in England, and without unbalancing the economy in any way.
We have also, we believe, the ideal site in Kidwelly. We can produce the essential water requirement for the plan. Limestone is available in great quantities in Carmarthen. Only five miles from the site there are large deposits of silica for making suitable grade silica bricks for the furnaces. No doubt, we shall be reminded of the objection of the National Coal Board which states that approximately 920 million tons of high-quality coking and anthracite coal are located in the Kidwelly area. Also there are 700 million tons under Carmarthen Bay. The National Coal Board say that 2 million tons of the coal might be sterilised if the siting of the plant were at Kidwelly. The


new pit at Cynheidre, which is one of the largest new developments in Britain, is estimated to produce about 1 million tons a year. If we were to produce at the same rate at Kidwelly, the unsterilised reserves of coal would be worth more than 250 years' supply. I do not think the Government need worry themselves unduly about that. If they survive 250 days they will be lucky. It is a great advantage to have this coal actually on the spot. It is an economic factor in favour of Kidwelly.
There are other interesting developments to which I would refer. The greatest part of the steel industry's requirements of iron ore would be met by imports. It is perfectly clear that, as the Steel Board has reported, substantial tonnages of ore will be brought from Labrador and Venezuela in United States carriers of up to 40,000 tons, and, as they point out, no United Kingdom port serving a steelworks could accommodate the ships of this size but the deep-water port of Milford Haven. That could be used for handling these large ore carriers. The Steel Company of Wales has already acquired a site at Milford Haven. No doubt, they realise that it will be much more economic to bring iron ore to Milford, even if it has to be transhipped from there or brought by rail to Port Talbot and that is further away from Milford Haven than Kidwelly.
The siting of the new strip mill will be a Government decision. It is no use the President of the Board of Trade saying that he has no powers in this matter. He has one very important negative power. He reminded us of that in the House on 24th February of this year when he said
Anyone who wants to build more than 5,000 square feet of industrial premises has to come to the Board of Trade. … As a matter of regular policy, we refuse the certificates when the area is congested. … I assure the House that we are firmly using the negative sanction of industrial development certificates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1958; Vol. 414, c. 148–9.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with that pledge on his lips, will not site the mill in an area of full employment, with healthy industrial prospects, leaving another area derelict, with highly skilled men out on a limb. If he does, the country will want to know the reasons. People will want to see the balance sheet. If they

are not satisfied that the economic reasons are overwhelming, the hon. Gentleman will provide the best argument for the renationalisation of steel that has yet been advanced.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has raised a number of points in, as one would expect, a well composed speech. I shall have difficulty in doing justice to all her arguments, but I believe that I can, quite briefly, deal with her last point on the location of the fourth strip mill.
Before dealing in detail with what she had to say, I think it would be right to remind the House of what has been going on in West South Wales since the end of the war. The amount of industrial building approved for West South Wales since the end of the war, until February this year, totals no less than l2½ million square feet, either completed or still under construction.
A great deal has been done, and is still being done, for this area, which we all recognise is one of peculiar difficulty in the provision of additional employment. Of the total, no less than 1½ million square feet has been financed by the Government of the day. There are still one or two important extensions planned by some of the existing firms, particularly non-ferrous metal firms, but I will admit frankly that their labour requirements will be small, and I do not suggest that this will provide a solution to the difficulties which have been underlined by the hon. Lady.
The traditional industries of the area—coal, steel sheet and tinplate—have been substantially augmented by oil refining, light alloy rolling, chemicals, clothing, light engineering—in fact, a major effort at diversifying the industrial activities of the region has been attempted, and, to a very large extent, has been successful. The Government have said on a number of occasions that they will be prepared to consider favourably applications from suitable firms for the erection of factories, with Government finance, not at their own expense, under the Distribution of Industry Acts. We do all we can to tell industrialists of the opportunities which exist. As I have explained to several


hon. Members who have been to see me about the situation in their own areas from time to time, we pursue a policy of persuasion. It would be quite wrong to try to direct firms to particular areas. As the hon. Lady said, we have a negative power, the withholding of an industrial development certificate; but we proceed, rightly, I think, by a policy of persuading firms to go to the area where we should like to see them go.
Perhaps the House will regard as an important and useful piece of news that, only this afternoon, I spent considerable time discussing a particular firm's development problem. As a result of the discussion, a prominent firm of manufacturers at present in the South Midlands has today expressed its readiness to consider setting up a large factory in West South Wales, and it will be making investigations very shortly. The House will, I am sure, understand that I cannot say more at this stage. I mention this example partly because it has arisen only today, but partly also to show that a policy of persuasion can produce results. In the present climate of opinion in the country, I am sure that it is the right policy for the Government to pursue.
The hon. Lady referred to the tinplate works. Some of the redundant tinplate works owned by the Steel Company of Wales are being put into fit order and are available for occupation by industrialists. I particularly stressed that to the firm today, saying that there were factories already available for it to occupy straight away if it so wished. It will, of course, look at some of these vacant factories in the course of its own investigations.
I must admit that, apart from the development which I have just announced to the House, we have no other applications for premises in West South Wales, although there are some small but welcome developments at present being tentatively discussed in connection with our vacant sites at Swansea where six firms are considering building for themselves. Hon. Members may well ask, "What are you doing about it? Are you just sitting back and doing nothing?" We are doing as much as we possibly can.
One development has been for us to take the Board of Trade Midlands Con-

troller down to West South Wales on an extended tour so that he can see for himself the opportunities which exist. He has now returned to Birmingham and has been busy telling the Birmingham industrialists about these opportunities in order to try to persuade them to look outside their own area. The interest has been very considerable. There has been a good deal of publicity in the Birmingham newspapers about the Controller's visit and what he saw there. Therefore, in one of the most prosperous areas of the country we may hope to have sown a fresh seed of enthusiasm which we believe may well lead to expanding industrialists looking at West South Wales as one of the places to which they might go.
Perhaps I might underline one of the points which the Controller himself has made in Birmingham in support of West South Wales, that new projects which are already established there have demonstrated the adaptability of the local labour supply. This is not an area of hard-bitten old men who refuse to learn new ways and will not be able to adapt themselves to new and modern factory techniques. It is very much the reverse. Manufacturers who have set up in the area have spoken highly of the quality of the labour available.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman also say that the Controller visited North-West Wales and made exactly the same point about the workers there?

Mr. Erroll: As the hon. Member for Anglesey has now made the point, it is hardly necessary for me to repeat it. Had he been successful in obtaining the Adjournment debate tonight, I am sure I should have been saying the same about North-West Wales, because it is perfectly true.
There is one other item of news which may not be known to all hon. Members, that it has recently been announced that the firm of Richard Thomas and Baldwins proposes to establish in the Gorseinon tinplate works a new press and fabricating shop to operate in conjunction with its existing Swansea works. That is an important development which should be operational in a year's time and should be employing about 450 workers.
The hon. Lady raised a number of individual points to which I shall try to reply briefly. First, she mentioned the


remarks of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on television the other night. I do not expect that she would like me to embark on a long debating speech on this matter tonight, because my right hon. Friend will himself be replying to a number of Parliamentary Questions on this very subject tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Percy Morris: If we reach them.

Mr. Erroll: There is also Thursday, when Questions will be taken from eleven to twelve o'clock. I think they should be reached on that occasion if not tomorrow.
It is only right that I should say that it is unfortunately only too true that this firm to which I have referred has undoubtedly been influenced by the existence of the Labour Party's nationalisation programme. Hon. Members opposite could remove the doubts and difficulties once and for all by publicly renouncing their intention of nationalising or threatening to nationalise certain sections of British industry.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would the Minister care to name the firm? Would he care to convey to it that during the period of the Labour Government, a large number of firms from other countries came to South Wales and established themselves there and are proving very successful? What kind of people does the hon. Gentleman think we are? Does he think that we would be influenced by what we regard as a bit of political blackmail?

Mr. Erroll: We are concerned not only with the Welsh people, but with the nationalities who might come and set up industries there. All I would do tonight, apart from asking the right hon. Gentleman to await the answers to Questions tomorrow which, I hope and think, will satisfy him concerning one of the points he raised, is to appeal to hon. Members opposite to take the step which I have suggested and so remove an obstacle, albeit a marginal obstacle, to the further expansion of British industry.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Is it not a fact that five chemical industries have shown complete readiness to establish themselves in Wales?

Mr. J. Griffiths: And very successfully.

Mr. Erroll: I said that marginally that obstacle undoubtedly makes a difference. It is just as well that hon. Members opposite should realise some of the consequences of the policies which they choose to initiate. They must be prepared to accept the consequences of those policies.
The hon. Lady asked about the Government's four-man team. The arrangements for setting up this team were announced on 7th February. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs, whose presence at Adjournment debates I appreciate, in consultation with other Ministers, set up the team to examine further methods of meeting the difficulties raised by the closure of certain steel sheet and tinplate works in West South Wales. The team got to work quickly. It held its first meeting on 11th February and agreed as a first step to make a tour of inspection of most of the works that were in danger of closure and some works which already had been closed. The team also held meetings both with the management and with the trade unions and trades councils concerned. It is now completing its examination of the problem and is considering its findings. We expect that its conclusions and recommendations will be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs at a very early date.
The hon. Lady referred to the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey. I understand that she has been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who, I believe, has given her as full an answer as it is possible to give at the moment. I checked with my right hon. Friend today on this very point to see whether there is any later information I can give, but there is nothing I can usefully add to the information which he has already supplied to the hon. Lady. I would only add that this is an explosives factory. Therefore, the opportunities for large-scale manufacture in peacetime are somewhat limited; but there is, as the hon. Lady well knows, the programme for breaking down ammunition, which should go on for a number of months.
The hon. Lady referred to the Royal Air Force establishment at Pembrey airfield. I am told that this airfield is now surplus to R.A.F. requirements, but under standing arrangements for dealing with redundant Government property the


premises are being offered to other possible Government users. Until this process of inquiry has been completed, it is not possible yet to say whether the premises will in due course be available for industrial use or whether other additional employment could be provided.
Concerning the food depot, to which the hon. Lady referred, at Llandovery, I understand that the hon. Lady is already in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. These buildings are fully used by the Ministry for essential purposes and so cannot be made available for use by other industry.
There is barely time for me to refer to new industries in the rural areas, nor,

indeed, to the interesting suggestion by the hon. Lady about development works generally by local authorities, such as electrification and road works. As I have pointed out, however, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs is present this evening. He will take note of those points which are not directly the concern of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and he will ensure that they are adequately attended to.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.